|
mlmp08 posted:Even better was the goon whose name I can't recall, but was a reference to Corvettes. He was super pissy, because he was also unskewing the polls, but not going as far. As a result, his lovely website wasn't getting nearly the traffic of the even more insane unskewing sites. Forums poster Boosted_C5 is still among us as Chris Christie.
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 13:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:45 |
|
|
How the gently caress can someone be excited about both Bernie and Ron Paul at the same time? You're not the accelerationist guy, so it's not so the world burns down. Are the two sides so extreme that you're assuming they're the same?  Under the vegetable posted:It's going to be really funny when Bernie patiently explains what a socialist actually supports and the majority of Americans go "uhh actually that sounds pretty decent" Unfortunately, after ten seconds all the news channels switch to something interesting and noone gets to hear Bernie's important message  edit WhiskeyJuvenile posted:The people in this thread are politically educated enough to know that presidential elections don't happen frequently enough to make predictions based on past patterns But Romney got the same percentage of white male voters that Reagan did! Sir Tonk fucked around with this message at 14:11 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
Have the actual dates of debates been confirmed? The op just lists months
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 14:11
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:How the gently caress can someone be excited about both Bernie and Ron Paul at the same time? You're not the accelerationist guy, so it's not so the world burns down. Are the two sides so extreme that you're assuming they're the same? Some people just want to see the political world change? Also, I'm gonna be voting for Bernie in the primary IF he makes it to the MA ticket (he won't). Heck, I might even write him in. But I don't actually think for a second that he's gonna last past Iowa. If he does, he's certainly not making it past New Hampshire. The media will sabotage his campaign (remember, the networks killed Dean with one modified audio clip) and that'll be it. He's not gonna get the Veep nom either. I agree with most people here that he's in it to make Hillary look more central and that's pretty much it. But I'm hoping just maybe---maybe--when he runs a nice clean campaign without SuperPAC money (and he will), he'll do decently enough that future candidates will realize "hey, maybe we don't all have to be huge shitheads when running" and it'll change political campaigns just the slightest amount for the better and then also everyone will get free Ben & Jerrys handed out by naked models because gently caress it this is obviously my fantasy world so let's play it out to the logical conclusion. Throw in some glue gun drones too, why not, make that other goon happy.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 14:22
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:How the gently caress can someone be excited about both Bernie and Ron Paul at the same time? You're not the accelerationist guy, so it's not so the world burns down. Are the two sides so extreme that you're assuming they're the same? I'm pumped about both, but only for the sake of humorous stuff happening.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 14:35
|
|
|
Bernie Sanders is going to be the liberal Ron Paul in that he's going to lose, all the socialists will leave DnD, and then we're going to open up a libertarian version of LF. And so the pendulum swings...
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 14:57
|
|
|
eternalname posted:Ugh, the same thing has been on my mind for a while now. The parallels are awful, the only way it could be worse is if Mitt Romney were the nominee again in 2016. The world exists outside your personal experience. I think Hillary is brilliant and plays the game superbly around the restrictions society places on her ( Obama cannot be the Angry Black Man but Clinton is forbidden from being the Emotional Woman and thus has a much larger canvas of rhetoric denied to her, for example ). To compare Mitt to Hillary is insane. The difference between someone who has more than enough and devotes their life to public service/charity and someone who will never have enough and devotes his life to gutting companies to extract the tasty pension funds within is staggering. It's the classist equivalent of saying you can't tell black people apart - and even then it's stupid because folks like mitt who were born to wealth look down their patrician noses on folks like Hillary who weren't ( and most self made rich folks are just as contemptuous towards the generational rich in return ). The divide and conquer strategy works in both directions.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
No one is excited about Hillary *uses small circle of friends as valid reference points, ignores polls and name recognition polls* Don't mind me, just creating some data out of these anecdotes.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 15:04
|
|
|
Jeb Bush says he's a big fan of author Charles Murray. In case you don't know who that is, he is co-author of The Bell Curve
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 15:24
|
|
|
Under the vegetable posted:It's going to be really funny when Bernie patiently explains what a socialist actually supports and the majority of Americans go "uhh actually that sounds pretty decent" Pew already did a poll that found that 52% of Democrats have a positive view of socialism and about 35% of the country as a whole does.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
Sir Tonk posted:But Romney got the same percentage of white male voters that Reagan did! Al Gore lost Tennessee!
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 15:32
|
|
|
I'm really interested to see recent polls regarding Clinton v. Generic Republican in West Virginia.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 15:46
|
|
|
Shageletic posted:I'm really interested to see recent polls regarding Clinton v. Generic Republican in West Virginia. Most recent poll is from a year ago, but Clinton loses to all Republicans in West Virginia by 9-12 points. The closest she comes to winning is against Cruz, where she loses by 3.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 15:48
|
|
|
Little_wh0re posted:Have the actual dates of debates been confirmed? The op just lists months The actual dates and venues have not yet been confirmed.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:The people in this thread are politically educated enough to know that presidential elections don't happen frequently enough to make predictions based on past patterns Democrats haven't won the presidency after a two-term candidate but twice in all of the modern party's history, first when Van Buren succeeded Jackson, second when FDR won a third term. If you think a trend that has followed the Democratic Party for two centuries can be shrugged off, your political bubble is too dense for anyone to pop. Ever heard of the six-year itch? It's the tendency for the president's party to lose a lot of seats during his sixth-year midterm, and has occurred to everyone two-term president since Reconstruction. And it's exactly what happened to Obama last year.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 15:54
|
|
|
HUGE PUBES A PLUS posted:Jeb Bush says he's a big fan of author Charles Murray. I wonder what Jeb thinks about Charles Murray's conclusions about women.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 15:57
|
|
|
Basically the Huckabee announcement video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCueO9fSDXs
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
FOXDIE posted:Democrats haven't won the presidency after a two-term candidate but twice in all of the modern party's history, first when Van Buren succeeded Jackson, second when FDR won a third term. If you think a trend that has followed the Democratic Party for two centuries can be shrugged off, your political bubble is too dense for anyone to pop. Do you understand why the incredible small data sample you're working with makes your conclusions bogus, or do you not understand statistics at all?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
FOXDIE posted:Women haven't won the presidency ever. If you think a trend that has followed the Democratic Party for two centuries can be shrugged off, your political bubble is too dense for anyone to pop.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:01
|
|
|
FOXDIE posted:Democrats haven't won the presidency after a two-term candidate but twice in all of the modern party's history, first when Van Buren succeeded Jackson, second when FDR won a third term. If you think a trend that has followed the Democratic Party for two centuries can be shrugged off, your political bubble is too dense for anyone to pop. Democrats don't win more than two consecutive terms except when they do. Staggering insight there.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Basically the Huckabee announcement video. Yes but does it cure diabetes?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:02
|
|
|
FOXDIE posted:Democrats haven't won the presidency after a two-term candidate but twice in all of the modern party's history, first when Van Buren succeeded Jackson, second when FDR won a third term. If you think a trend that has followed the Democratic Party for two centuries can be shrugged off, your political bubble is too dense for anyone to pop. Van Buren has loving nothing to do with the 2016 election dumbass
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
FOXDIE posted:Democrats haven't won the presidency after a two-term candidate but twice in all of the modern party's history, first when Van Buren succeeded Jackson, second when FDR won a third term. If you think a trend that has followed the Democratic Party for two centuries can be shrugged off, your political bubble is too dense for anyone to pop. Obama will never be elected because they've all been white and bradley effect, McAuliffe will lose because VA/NJ always go opposite the President, Missouri is the bellwether, etc. Political trends continue until they don't because curses and sorcery aren't real.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:04
|
|
|
FOXDIE posted:Democrats haven't won the presidency after a two-term candidate but twice in all of the modern party's history, first when Van Buren succeeded Jackson, second when FDR won a third term. If you think a trend that has followed the Democratic Party for two centuries can be shrugged off, your political bubble is too dense for anyone to pop. So which states are going to flip red in this scenario?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
FOXDIE posted:Democrats haven't won the presidency after a two-term candidate but twice in all of the modern party's history, first when Van Buren succeeded Jackson, second when FDR won a third term. If you think a trend that has followed the Democratic Party for two centuries can be shrugged off, your political bubble is too dense for anyone to pop. GUYS GUYS GUYS - no woman has ever been elected after a black president!!!!!!!!!! its true!!!!!!!!!!! Hillary has no chance, that's like ten billion years of history where no woman was elected U.S. president after a black man. 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
What really bugs me is Walker's popularity. There is no 'there', there. Where are people hearing about him? Are there advertisments?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
You're going to need a strong causal reason for this two term theory with a data set of, what, 10? Related: Is there any truth to the "Republicans win on foreign policy; Democrats win on domestic issues" truism? It seems more likely that a foreign policy crisis will emerge than an economic one but that's just a hunch.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Stop living in your pathetic fantasy world, Clintonailures. For you see, the fantastical science of numerology has probven it's mathematically certain that I don't have to lie awake pissing the bed at the thought of President Hillary  See no President has ever been elected with a first name starting with H, except Herbert Hoover but he was a Republican. Is Hillary going to break this trend, I think not. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:12 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
FOXDIE posted:Democrats haven't won the presidency after a two-term candidate but twice in all of the modern party's history, first when Van Buren succeeded Jackson, second when FDR won a third term. If you think a trend that has followed the Democratic Party for two centuries can be shrugged off, your political bubble is too dense for anyone to pop. Also 6 of those Presidents either don't count as evidence for or against a trend, or are the exceptions. You don't understand statistics. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 16:12 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Warcabbit posted:What really bugs me is Walker's popularity. There is no 'there', there. Generic Republican governer that really hates unions and pisses off liberals. He's the "other" candidate so far that everyone can project whatever they want onto. We'll see what happens when he starts actually getting attacked in the primaries.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:12
|
|
|
Eschers Basement posted:GUYS GUYS GUYS - no woman has ever been elected after a black president!!!!!!!!!! its true!!!!!!!!!!! Hillary has no chance, that's like ten billion years of history where no woman was elected U.S. president after a black man. Get used to saying President Carson because once you go black you'll never go back.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:18
|
|
|
It's true that the policy mood of the US electorate shifts in response to the perceived liberal / conservative bent of the current government. As the government is more liberal, the electorate adopts a conservative mood, providing a kind of thermostatic control over policy. The question is whether that effect (1) can still effect the Presidential election now that the post-CRA resorting is complete, and (2) whether the magnitude of the effect can disrupt what appears to be an electoral advantage for the Democratic party in national elections. And that's why the "no third term" "rule" is too simplistic to predict what will happen in 2016, particularly since you have to pretend 2000 was a straightforward Republican victory for it to make any sense to begin with, and have to put an asterisk next to Kennedy/LBJ, and have to reckon with Nixon's resignation.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:Most recent poll is from a year ago, but Clinton loses to all Republicans in West Virginia by 9-12 points. The closest she comes to winning is against Cruz, where she loses by 3. I'm somewhat surprised, in a weirdly non-terrible way. EDIT: Naet posted:I wonder what Jeb thinks about Charles Murray's conclusions about women. quote:Women have their own cognitive advantages over men, many of them involving verbal fluency and interpersonal skills. If this were a comprehensive survey, detailing those advantages would take up as much space as I have devoted to a particular male advantage. https://www.aei.org/publication/charles-murray-no-i-dont-think-women-are-genetically-inferior/ This is his defense, a non-ironic separate but equal argument. This man is a clown. Shageletic fucked around with this message at 16:28 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
He was better at what? Being racist? Writing white supremacist newspapers? Shilling gold? Zelder posted:Bernie Sanders is going to be the liberal Ron Paul in that he's going to lose, all the socialists will leave DnD, and then we're going to open up a libertarian version of LF. LF was for libertarians dude. nachos posted:Generic Republican governer that really hates unions and pisses off liberals. He's the "other" candidate so far that everyone can project whatever they want onto. We'll see what happens when he starts actually getting attacked in the primaries. Walker is the reified Generic Republican that normally only appears on polls 3 years ahead of elections. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 16:43 on May 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:15 Democratic Presidents out of 44 overall spread over two centuries doesn't constitute a trend. I'd say more than 6 don't count, since the countless realignments and splits over the years make pretty much everything prior to Reconstruction moot, and that's being generous enough to omit the New Deal coalitions and the Civil Rights realignment. Turns out ideology isn't something that has stayed tied to party identity for even the past century, let alone the history of the country. Now if you think about it in terms of the Adams/Jefferson split there might be something to it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Also, the guy even used used for his example the number of Democratic presidencies following a two-timer, in the 19th century. That's just bizaare.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:25
|
|
|
Yes, but how are people hearing about him?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:26
|
|
|
McAlister posted:To compare Mitt to Hillary is insane. [...] It's the classist equivalent of saying you can't tell black people apart 
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
It's a beautiful day in New Jersey, everyone.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 13:45 |
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Oh my God unskewed polls I remember that site, good times. Their method of "unskewing" the polls was based on the assumption that there were the same number of Democrats and Republicans in America. In fact there are more self-identified Democrats, but they would unskew by taking the poll numbers from self-identified Democrats and Republicans equally. Since self-identified Republicans are more likely to say they intend to vote for the Republican, this unskewing made it look like Romney was in the lead. I used their methodology in reverse to reskew the polls, and got hilarious numbers saying that Obama would win 538 electoral votes to 0.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2015 18:17
|
|
How did it work again? They would take actual poll results and just make poo poo up? Was there any kind of system to it?