|
also, polling in nevada is rather unpredictable, and its high hispanic pop adds to that
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
Nessus posted:I'm the 11% who were fired up by Comey to go vote for Hillary. You can get some weird/fun results from questions like this. Like the 2% of voters in Florida who believe Hillary is a literal demon from Hell, but still want to vote for her. Militree posted:If this is he case, why does 538 have Nevada 50/50? Also, why is Florida red? Urge to arzy rising... IIRC, the NYT's model for NC is the only one that tries to make inferences based on early voting. All other models look at polling and fundamentals only.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:How does that prove Bernie wouldn't be doing better? Young people do not vote in huge numbers. This is also one of the reasons he didn't do as well as Hillary in the primary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:27
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:How does that prove Bernie wouldn't be doing better? Bernie had little to no ground game with minorities. Aside from his supporters whitesplaining everything in the most condescending manner possible. "hey look at this one picture of young Bernie at a sit in. clearly he knows whats best for you!" Oh, and lets not forget about his supporters railing on the BLM protesters for being ignorant. Agrajag fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Young people do not vote in huge numbers. This is also one of the reasons he didn't do as well as Hillary in the primary. OK but it doesn't prove that they wouldn't be turning out more if he was the nominee. Or that he wouldn't have been able to improve his minority outreach. He definitely did over the course of the primary. mcmagic fucked around with this message at 14:30 on Nov 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:28
|
|
|
Covok posted:I can't wait till White people are only 49% of this country and no one is the majority and all minorities. Maybe then we can move forward. I don't see that that will change anything. We've already divorced population minority/majority status from their mathematical identities. Apparently a group can constitute more than 50% of the population and still be considered a 'minority.'
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:OK but it doesn't prove that they wouldn't be turning out more if he was the nominee. if they turned out for him well enough in the primary he probably could have won the nomination.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:OK but it doesn't prove that they wouldn't be turning out more if he was the nominee. Bernie would very likely turn out more young voters than Clinton, but probably turn out fewer minority voters. I honestly believe that, at least on the numbers game, it's sort of a wash as to which would do better at this stage of the election. That also ignores all the unknowns, because we also can't assume that all of the same events would have transpired in the election, so speculating is pointless and will only lead to arguing in circles.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Young people do not vote in huge numbers. This is also one of the reasons he didn't do as well as Hillary in the primary. It's true that young voters aren't the most reliable bloc, but I'd be careful to conflate enthusiasm with willingness. I assume a fair amount of the 18-34 demographic will ultimately hold their nose and vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Militree posted:If this is he case, why does 538 have Nevada 50/50? Also, why is Florida red? Urge to arzy rising... Because Nate Silver's model is bad. Like, that's literally it. Anything else is twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to not criticize him. The other trackers have converged or are rapidly converging to a 90%+ consensus while Nate's is still all over the place. He screwed up the Trump call by ignoring the data, and now his model's broken. He did a very bad job this election.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Militree posted:If this is he case, why does 538 have Nevada 50/50? Also, why is Florida red? Urge to arzy rising... nate is doing something fucky, I think mcmagic posted:OK but it doesn't prove that they wouldn't be turning out more if he was the nominee. Or that he wouldn't have been able to improve his minority outreach. (crickets sounds) This is where you fill in the above with something substantive rather than with conjecture.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:It's true that young voters aren't the most reliable bloc, but I'd be careful to conflate enthusiasm with willingness. I assume a fair amount of the 18-34 demographic will ultimately hold their nose and vote. Yea, probably the roughly same amount as previous elections, which is still the lowest of all the age groups.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
loving double posts.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:31
|
|
|
Jesus way to argue about something that would happen in hindsight of a thing that never happened
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:OK but it doesn't prove that they wouldn't be turning out more if he was the nominee. Or that he wouldn't have been able to improve his minority outreach. He definitely did over the course of the primary. gonna give you a heads up: I've canvassed politically for bernie since the mid 90's and have been canvassing for hillary just an FYI on the level of detail I am going to be expecting you to engage with
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Because Nate Silver's model is bad. I'm not the biggest fan of Nate's model, but that's an unfair criticism because the other models don't include early voting either. Wang has NV in a similar position as Nate, i.e. a toss-up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:We are all racist speak for yourself
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:33
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Young people do not vote in huge numbers. This is also one of the reasons he didn't do as well as Hillary in the primary. I'm still pissed about the WI Supreme Court election. Those same voters basically cost the Dems a seat on the WI Supreme Court for 10 years.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:loving double posts. Stop mashing the submit button like an Xbox controller.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:
It's not conjecture. He was MUCH more effective at minority outreach by the end of the primary. It's the reason he won Michigan.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
I wouldn't rush to blame 538's model for showing Nevada as a tight race if they don't account for early voting, few models do account for early voting, and NV is historically difficult to poll. can't speak for florida i don't know a drat thing about that
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:34
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:nate is doing something fucky, I think He explains what that is here: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-why-our-model-is-more-bullish-than-others-on-trump/ In summary, it's because:
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It's not conjecture. He was MUCH more effective at minority outreach by the end of the primary. It's the reason he won Michigan. He lost Wayne County by large margins and only "won" (effectively tied) by running up the score in all the white areas. Like seriously: 
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:36
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:It's not conjecture. He was MUCH more effective at minority outreach by the end of the primary. It's the reason he won Michigan. I actually find that I don't have the energy to have this discussion this morning. We may talk later about the mason dixon line.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Keep in mind that both Bernie's and Hillary's game would have been the exact same thing: Make the entire election a referendum on letting Trump in the White House. We know this because both of them are campaigning right now.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Dead Cosmonaut posted:Keep in mind that both Bernie's and Hillary's game would have been the exact same thing: Make the entire election a referendum on letting Trump in the White House. We know this because both of them are campaigning right now. This also. If he was the nominee and had the whole party behind him, he would've clearly had a much better minority outreach operation than he did in the primary. He just didn't have the 30 year relationship with these communities that the Clintons had and that is the reason he lost the primary.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Chelb posted:can't speak for florida i don't know a drat thing about that Florida is difficult to predict because the victory margins are always extremely small. In 2012, both Nate and Wang had it essentially at 50% (IIRC, Nate's was like 50.6% for Obama which is how he got all 50 states correct). Having to rely on winning there is a huge gamble for any campaign, so it's a good thing Clinton doesn't need it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:39
|
|
|
Harrow posted:He explains what that is here: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-why-our-model-is-more-bullish-than-others-on-trump/
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:All of these "corruption" charges leave me emotionally rather unmoved because from what I can tell, there are two options: It also means that while being the most scrutinized politician in the world over the last few decades (arguably ever, especially after wikileaks), she's managed to run the largest and most complex pay-for-play scheme in the history of the world...without generating any actual evidence of her corruption. Maybe I'm broken and cynical, but that sounds like a hell of a selling point to me. Kilroy posted:Personally I think the House is still in play and we're going to be pleasantly surprised Tuesday night. What up, House Hopeful buddy? I don't think it's likely, but I think we have a decent shot. 35% (my belief of likelihood) doesn't sound great, but if you told me there was a 35% a longlost relative was going to bequeath me a million today, I'd be thrilled (I'd also not leave the house if you told me there was a 35% chance of death if I did). Fakeedit: WampaLord posted:This poo poo right here needs to be quoted at mcmagic every time he argues Bernie would be doing better. Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:I think the logical response that he would make would be that Bernie would motivate those younger voters more and wouldn't be down that low. Won't someone think of the young white voters??
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Actually, if you're bringing this back up this late in the season, I need to think you're fairly well read on Bernie's primary problems. You've probably already read what you needed to read and just disagree, which is well and cool.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
And even in the unlikely chance that he did win. Clinton and Obama would be campaigning minority outreach for him right now. This is what party loyalty means in the face of Trump possibility being elected .
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:He just didn't have the 30 year relationship with these communities that the Clintons had and that is the reason he lost the primary. And you don't think that this would affect the minority voting rate in the general election at all?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:How does that prove Bernie wouldn't be doing better? Who is "Bernie"?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:41
|
|
|
Radish posted:Basically this. Also just look at how the media has covered alllivesmatter as a legitimate counter opinion to blacklivesmatter. BLM is mainly concerned with black people not being killed for no reason and the only way to report on that is to act like they are making some sort of attack on the police and that white people who are offended by that are totally legitimate in their opinion. Additionally look at the disparity in reporting of the Trump supporter that murdered two police officers or the white couple that killed people in Las Vegas then draped a Tea Party flag over the bodies after leaving the Bundy ranch. None of that was reported as "white culture" leading to violent extremism but if those people were black there would be no shortage of serious white people making statements about how black culture is to blame or if they were muslim why aren't Islamic leaders denouncing this? Implying racism actually still affects minorities REALLY offends most white people (even a lot of Democrats so it's not just a Republican thing) since they don't want to admit they have structural advantages which means they didn't earn what they have at the expense of others. Culturally bumping against this gets a lot of push back on many levels including politicians and the media both mainstream and social. Why is it that white people in this country seem to be so incredibly fragile? As if the very idea that minorities actually do have different experiences than them or that suggesting that someone of a different skin tone so much as be allowed to show up in numbers greater than two on a series is enough to make them explode about how unfair it is. It's like so many of them have no comprehension of the idea that white people really do get advantages so anything less than utter submission causes something deep inside to just break.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Because Nate Silver's model is bad. His model called 99 out of 100 states in the two primaries.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:42
|
|
|
Chokes McGee posted:Because Nate Silver's model is bad. Let's not conflate Nate's model with his Trump punditry. The model was right in basically everything except the Michigan Democratic primary, if I remember correctly. Nate just went all pundit on Trump and ignored the data his own model was showing him until it was undeniable.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This also. If he was the nominee and had the whole party behind him, he would've clearly had a much better minority outreach operation than he did in the primary. He just didn't have the 30 year relationship with these communities that the Clintons had and that is the reason he lost the primary. yeah, this is a dramatically oversimplified view of visible minorities as communities in the states. I think I know where you're coming from and what you've read and think. CascadeBeta posted:And you don't think that this would affect the minority voting rate in the general election at all? He's about to say something that can be extended by corollary to mean that they are servants of the DNC or that they can be steered liberals have coded racial speech, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:Who is "Bernie"? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-feldman/bernie-goetz-the-subway-g_b_6369128.html
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
mcmagic posted:This also. If he was the nominee and had the whole party behind him, he would've clearly had a much better minority outreach operation than he did in the primary. He just didn't have the 30 year relationship with these communities that the Clintons had and that is the reason he lost the primary. He lost because his organization couldn't get enough people out to vote. Since Clinton has proven her ability to GOTV more so than Sanders I'd say the Dems made the right choice, wouldn't you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 05:46 |
|
|
Wha is all this poo poo about Bernie and the primary? He has endorsed Hillary and is calling for investigation into insulin makers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2016 14:44
|
|