|
Alter Ego posted:
reposting from the Trump thread, but it has to do [imo] with how a murphy win is going to come about. Rubio is strong with Florida Latinos. It will be difficult for him to be knocked off in a normal election cycle when the D's strength in Florida is willing to ticket split to vote for him. You do, however, win in a wave. Financial investment doesn't really make that more or less likely to happen and HRC is already dumping so much into Florida that the DSCC can use their resources to work on turnout in Missouri and Indiana. Murphy also had a pretty bad debate.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:59 |
|
|
Schnorkles posted:reposting from the Trump thread, but it has to do [imo] with how a murphy win is going to come about. Rubio is strong with Florida Latinos. It will be difficult for him to be knocked off in a normal election cycle when the D's strength in Florida is willing to ticket split to vote for him. You do, however, win in a wave. Financial investment doesn't really make that more or less likely to happen and HRC is already dumping so much into Florida that the DSCC can use their resources to work on turnout in Missouri and Indiana. Well, maybe that's true, but narrative-wise it'll be spun as "DEMS GIVE UP ON MURPHY, DOES THIS SPELL DOOM FOR CLINTON IN FLORIDA?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 17:23
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Well, maybe that's true, but narrative-wise it'll be spun as "DEMS GIVE UP ON MURPHY, DOES THIS SPELL DOOM FOR CLINTON IN FLORIDA?" i think its pretty hard to see it being doom and gloom for Clinton in florida when she hasn't trailed in a poll there in weeks. Murphy is a weak candidate [like most statewide FL dems] and will get elected in a wave. Rubio probably knocks him off otherwise.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 17:25
|
|
|
Murphy is doing badly with Hispanics. That's the real problem. If it wasn't for that he would be ahead. In fact the polling for Murphy is way better than a few weeks ago.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Well, maybe that's true, but narrative-wise it'll be spun as "DEMS GIVE UP ON MURPHY, DOES THIS SPELL DOOM FOR CLINTON IN FLORIDA?" stay safe optics ghost
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
Schnorkles posted:reposting from the Trump thread, but it has to do [imo] with how a murphy win is going to come about. Rubio is strong with Florida Latinos. It will be difficult for him to be knocked off in a normal election cycle when the D's strength in Florida is willing to ticket split to vote for him. You do, however, win in a wave. Financial investment doesn't really make that more or less likely to happen and HRC is already dumping so much into Florida that the DSCC can use their resources to work on turnout in Missouri and Indiana. yea Murphy and a few others are in positions where you can dump money into the race all day but unless the right voters show up in big enough numbers already you're just pissing in the wind. They could be pulling out and hoping the narrow gap gets closed by a wave of straight ticket D voters. Also yea, Clinton is paying huge in Florida already, it's kinda dumb to keep dumping money when Big Mama is already making it rain.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
old cuban americans have the worst politics, im saying this as a son of one
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
Percelus posted:old cuban americans have the worst politics, im saying this as a son of one 
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Tatum Girlparts posted:yea Murphy and a few others are in positions where you can dump money into the race all day but unless the right voters show up in big enough numbers already you're just pissing in the wind. They could be pulling out and hoping the narrow gap gets closed by a wave of straight ticket D voters. So the logic on pulling funding from Murphy is that he is going to win/lose because of Clinton's coattails and no amount of $$ will change that? Basically the Clinton campaign is getting the likely Murphy voters to the polls and Murphy is unlikely to benefit from ticket splitting? Or am I being too optimistic?
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
axeil posted:So the logic on pulling funding from Murphy is that he is going to win/lose because of Clinton's coattails and no amount of $$ will change that? Basically the Clinton campaign is getting the likely Murphy voters to the polls and Murphy is unlikely to benefit from ticket splitting? Or am I being too optimistic? The logic is that Murphy is a weak candidate and there are better uses for funds. If Murphy wins its because of coattails and the bottom falling out of republican turnout, not the power of his own campaign.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
The other thing working against Murphy - FL is expensive to compete in because it's so huge. You get more bang for your buck investing in 2 smaller states than competing there.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Murphy's entire appeal as a democratic candidate is basically that he's good at fundraising so he might just not need the help, for whatever good it would do anyway
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 19:41
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:The other thing working against Murphy - FL is expensive to compete in because it's so huge. You get more bang for your buck investing in 2 smaller states than competing there. For context: FL has five cities whose TV markets are within the top 50 DMAs (Tampa Bay #13, Miami #16, Orlando #19, West Palm Beach #38, Jacksonville #47) plus several others in the top 100, compared to other battleground states Missouri with 2 (STL #21, KC #31--Springfield is at #74), NC with 3 (Charlotte #24, Raleigh-Durham #27, Winston-Salem 46) plus an NC/SC split market at #36, and Indiana only one (Indianapolis #25--Evansville and Ft Wayne are both out of the top 100 DMAs, although there is spillover in Illiana with the Chicago market). Ad spending in FL has to be absurdly expensive. For content: GOP internal polls have Ayotte by 1 in NH, Toomey by 2 in PA (partially due to a reverse-split in the Philly 'burbs, where Clinton is doing well but McGinty is struggling a bit), Rubio by 3 in FL despite the ad-pull and Blunt by 1 in MO. https://www.nationaljournal.com/s/643658?oref=t.co&mref=twitter_share&unlock=XCNQD1I4XP3RF84H
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
There seems to be a lot of Senate races where the Dems are losing/barely leading at all but Hillary is doing well. I do think her strategy of distancing the rest of the GOP from Trump is making it harder for those candidates to break away.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
FlamingLiberal posted:There seems to be a lot of Senate races where the Dems are losing/barely leading at all but Hillary is doing well. I do think her strategy of distancing the rest of the GOP from Trump is making it harder for those candidates to break away. I think it's depressing turnout vs trying to tie the downballot if you can hammer the top of the ticket down a few %, there's no need for anything else
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
At least it seems that GOP turnout is already down in several swing states.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
plus she's not the best messenger for that, the downballot themselves are working hard to make those connections
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:also the gop is trying to ratfuck democrats in NY-21 by talking about how the green party candidate is the real progressive. i don't really know why dke hates the top-two system so much; it seems like avoiding this sort of thing, or the way maine's non-insane voters split between two candidates and made paul lepage a two-term governor, makes up for the occasional lockout by two strong candidates from the minority party (maine might go to the theoretically superior IVR tho iirc, isn't there a ballot measure about that? how is that looking? it would be interesting to see how americans react to that, i think it'd be the highest level it's been applied at in this country?) Derrick, like almost all democratic campaigns, are going after the Trump connection https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JYLxGGxYS14 I don't think she has a chance, especially in NY.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
derrick is going to lose real bad
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:05
|
|
|
Concerned Citizen posted:derrick is going to lose real bad Color me corrected: http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/elise-stefanik-lead-internal-poll-new-york-mike-derrick Upstate NY!
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
I had honestly never heard of California's top two system, but drat that's so good. So much better than party switching and tactical voting
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
theflyingexecutive posted:I had honestly never heard of California's top two system, but drat that's so good. So much better than party switching and tactical voting It has drawbacks. The "best" candidate might come in 3rd place if the party participation of candidates is too lopsided, like what happened in my district in 2012. But it doesn't seem extremely likely and it was corrected in 2014 anyway. All in all, I'm satisfied.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:42
|
|
|
the 'two candidates from party w/ 40% of the vote finish 1-2 over eighteen candidates from party w/ 60% of the vote' thing is a drawback and does happen on occasion there's just a fundamental awkwardness between 'the best two names on this ballot will go to the next round' and 'party politics as they actually exist'. i don't know if there's really a solution in theory having every voter rank every candidate and going on to nth-preference votes is better, but in reality, where most voters are confused by anything new and dont know or care who any of the names on the ballot are anyway, i could see it falling short of its theoretical benefits i think there was an oakland mayor election using some kind of ranked preference system that went to a trillion ballots that confused people, but i don't really know how people felt about it. anyone follow that election and the aftermath? finding the best way to vote, much like finding the best way to district, is an interesting problem and i suspect there's really no one true answer, but i'm open to suggestions
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
we should have a ncaa tournament bracket for our elections
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 23:04
|
|
|
Ranked and range voting are perhaps mildly confusing, but not nearly as bad as having seventeen statewide propositions, with two pairs that are mutually exclusive. On top of that you have county and municipal propositions (can number in the dozens), and election for dogcatcher or whatever bullshit position where there is zero public information about the candidate.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 23:11
|
|
|
^ im generally in favor of more complicated things for their own sake (see below) in any case so i'm all for that stuff, and i think there's a happy medium that's more complicated than first-past-the-post that we're only gonna find through laboratory of democracy style trial and error, so i hope we get a proliferation of voting methods and tons of analysis also im not looking forward to figuring out what the gently caress is going on with the dueling grocery store bag propositions but im stoked af that im gonna be able to vote for a redistricting commission in my city!!! i read the law and it looks p solid - hell, if i get some time in the next 3 years i might try to draw up some maps using publicly available data and try to get my rear end on the commission (is pipedream, will not occur) - and nobody bothered to submit an 'anti' write-up for the election booklet so i'm guessing there isn't any significant opposition to it Karl Barks posted:we should have a ncaa tournament bracket for our elections australian rules football playoff system ftw  the dutch or belgians had the most ridiculous playoff system ive ever seen where basically everyone in the league was involved in interlocking playoffs where the winners could go up to win champions league spots or down to win europea league spots or even into the relegation playoffs, to avoid going down to the minor leagues. it was so complicated that only i could love it, and i think they got rid of it - but there was some particular graphic of it that i just can't find right now also i dont have it any more but like 10 years ago i drew up an afl style playoff for mlb in screenshot-of-xls form - every once in a while someone posts it at me on twitter so i guess it's still floating around. i also have a spreadsheet where i used macros to open a simulator in internet explorer, download the box scores, and run afl-style playoffs for mlb from 1903 to 2009 or whenever i made it. i should dig that thing up im a strong believer in complicated playoff systems but i came in here to post this politico article http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/house-republicans-firewall-election-229910 quote:With Trump fending off allegations of sexual harassment and his tanking numbers threatening to pull down once-safe GOP lawmakers, this is what 2016 now looks like for the pair of related conservative outside groups: They're dropping $500,000 on TV ads in deep-red Utah to protect Rep. Mia Love, whose Mormon-heavy district has recoiled from Trump’s vulgar comments about women. They’re spending another $700,000 in Tucson, Arizona, to protect freshman Rep. Martha McSally, a retired Air Force colonel who has comfortably led her Democratic challenger all year. And they're working to shore up conservative-leaning districts in the Central Valley of California, western Colorado, upstate New York and Michigan. even if democrats lose all of these seats, this is money that probably would've gone to senate races or the presidency instead. not all fundraising money is fungible, but i think it's pretty clear that a ton of gop donors have moved their giving downticket, and the further down they feel the need to go the thinner they're stretched and the more upballot poo poo they're triaging oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 00:46 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 00:41
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:also im not looking forward to figuring out what the gently caress is going on with the dueling grocery store bag propositions 67 is “ 65 would take the 10¢ fees, if 67 passes, and put them in some nebulous fund (I haven’t looked into the specifics of this fund). If it passes on its own, nothing happens.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
oh that's not that complicated. i shouldn't read those pro-con argument sections in the election book thing i got in the mail, they're just talking points and confused me without enlightening thanks edit: other bigger numbers in that article quote:They’ll spend $2 million to protect Jeff Denham of California, a three-term congressman who thumped his Democratic opponent the first time they faced off in 2014. That money will be used to counter millions being poured into the district by Democrats trying to capitalize on Denham’s district's large Hispanic population: Their ads seek to tie Denham to Trump’s controversial comments about undocumented workers. i hope that beekeeper named eggman whose wife or sister or w/e is a state rep wins the modesto district. it's gonna be really interesting to see if/how hispanic turnout going up hits the central valley - agricultural laborers are a, uh, historically low-turnout constituency and i've read that lots of the hispanic work force had to uproot themselves and move around the valley to find work during the drought, although i don't know much about this topic so i'll refrain from making any sweeping comments (for example i don't know how many of them are illegal and therefore not a factor in terms of votes) oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 01:23 on Oct 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
fwiw denham's district actually voted for obama in 2012 and heck, that was the first time that stanislaus county—which it's based around—had given a majority of its votes to the democratic candidate since 1964
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:also im not looking forward to figuring out what the gently caress is going on with the dueling grocery store bag propositions Platystemon posted:67 is “ ballotpedia is a pretty good source for prop info, that's what i was using 67 bans plastic bags and adds a 10 cent fee for other disposable bags (ie paper); 65, as you said, redirects the fee.  apparently the plastic bag manufacturers are anti-67 (duh) and pro-65; as far as anyone can tell, this is an attempt to turn stores against the measure (since if they aren't getting the bag fee, they'll look for ways to avoid implementing it and push for a repeal). basically 65 is a pretty-looking poison pill the list of supporters and opponents is pretty revealing classic stuff
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Early voting started in Florida yesterday! Haven't gone out yet since I probably need to look up judges to see if they're poo poo or not (they probably are). There's also amendments 3 and 4 which are tax exemptions and I'm tempted to vote no on 4 for spite against the elderly or something. There's also the local down ballot which I might just leave blank since is pretty much all red and dem in name only. The state races I'll probably vote all dem though since it's unlikely they'll win anyways except for Rod Smith since he's been there forever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/house-2016-democrats-gain-in-ratings/ The house is slowly moving towards the Dems, but they need to sweep the toss-ups and knock off a few lean seats to actually gain control.
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
cmon wave cmonnnnnnnnnnnnnnn fill my wave cave, house election prognosticators
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/scottbix/status/789204320184963072 christ
|
|
#
?
Oct 20, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:Early voting started in Florida yesterday! Haven't gone out yet since I probably need to look up judges to see if they're poo poo or not (they probably are). There's also amendments 3 and 4 which are tax exemptions and I'm tempted to vote no on 4 for spite against the elderly or something. There's also the local down ballot which I might just leave blank since is pretty much all red and dem in name only. The state races I'll probably vote all dem though since it's unlikely they'll win anyways except for Rod Smith since he's been there forever. make sure you also vote no on 1 (it is poo poo)
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Fullhouse posted:make sure you also vote no on 1 (it is poo poo) No on 1, Yes on 2, probably yes on 3 and idgaf no on 4
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 00:31
|
|
|
Rubio is gay for pay. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
God drat, Obama
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 01:12
|
|
|
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/51a716548ddb41efad6e2dd06ae3366b/bayh-didnt-stay-overnight-indiana-condo-once-2010quote:INDIANAPOLIS (AP) — Evan Bayh says that his Indianapolis condominium has long been his home, and that he has spent "lots and lots" of time there since deciding to run for his old Senate seat. But a copy of his schedule shows Bayh did not stay overnight there once during his last year in office in 2010.
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 18:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 01:59 |
|
|
Xelkelvos posted:No on 1, Yes on 2, probably yes on 3 and idgaf no on 4 probably voting no, yes, no, no because we don't need more tax exemptions in this hell state
|
|
#
?
Oct 21, 2016 21:06
|
|
