|
FMguru posted:Yeah, once you LOSE a presidential election you are supposed to go away because you are a LOSER. Nixon's 1960/1968 doubleshot went down as one of the greatest comebacks in history because things like that are so rare. Romney already faced the voters once, and got decisively rejected. What possible logic (other than a total lack of other viable candidates) justifies giving him another bite at the apple? Ohio wasn't rigged. I was an election monitor in Ohio in 2004 - they bussed a load of us in from Michigan and other law schools because they didn't have enough people there. We got no training other than a fifteen minute speech once we got there (at 9 am or so, long after the polls had already opened), the large central office was remarkably disorganized and it took another hour to get everyone to their assigned precinct. Once we got there (in my case a 90% Dem ward) we heard nothing for the rest of the day and never saw a single other person from the party until the polls closed. Most of that might be how things normally work, no biggie, and I remember being optimistic on the bus back, but what I should've thought about was that we were in the middle of Toledo and they clearly didn't have the resources to cover the whole city in the biggest source of pure D votes in the state. FWIW, the GOP didn't even bother to send monitors and didn't need them because the polls weren't rigged after all  This also goes to Kerry's competence but who knows it's entirely possible the Ohio state party was enough of a trainwreck on its own.
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2014 10:00
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 00:05 |
|
|
This is actually probably true, but nobody with Presidential ambitions is gonna decline the Vice Presidency because statistical historical analysis something something.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2014 23:16
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:'The economy will look better' is quite the optimistic prediction. Two years of a Republican House and Senate, I'm drat uncertain how the economy will look for anything except for growing wealth inequality, deflationary forces in non-personal spending (healthcare, education), and wage stagnation. It's quite likely the economy will continue to recover because the EU is hell bent on doing the worst things possible politically, meaning the money seeking a safe harbor after any European crisis (which is a lot more likely to happen than an American one in the next two years) will be coming right back to the States. Also, since gas costs something like a third of what it does in Europe, cheap oil benefits the US consumer much more than a European in percentage terms.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 16, 2015 10:33
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Martin O'Malley won't be challenging Hillary. He's starting as a Visiting Professor at the Johns Hopkins University business school on February 2. That's official confirmation she's running, isn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
shadow puppet of a posted:Mitt would never hear the question over the din of 15 washing machines running in the next room. Uhh excuse me washing clothes is for the plebes who have to wear them a second time.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:If (lol) Hillary doesn't run, someone who isn't currently running like Gillibrand or Patrick or Hickenlooper or a Castro is going to get the nomination, it's really probably not going to be O'Malley. If Hillary doesn't run, Biden will run away with it because the rest of these people are now confirmed awful. V. Illych L. posted:clinton is running, hypotheticals to the contrary are futile Eh there's still six months, it's always possible she has a bad physical or somebody finds actual evidence of Bill on Epstein's underage hooker planes or something.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Cugel the Clever posted:That's funny, it came off as an extremely condescending, "Dawww, you want to play with us big kids? That's adorable." As the guy who talked up Biden's chances for the past three years in all prior iterations of this thread, it's a done deal barring medical issues or maybe that Epstein thing blowing up and involving Bill somehow. Bernie's campaign is actually a blessing to Hillary at this stage; she's sucked up so much of the oxygen that the remainder had to go to one person Right Now for that person to have any chance, and as it turns out, instead of Biden or somebody else with a prayer the oxygen went to Bernie instead.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 21, 2015 18:52
|
|
|
2016 Presidential Primary: Lindsay Graham is guaranteed to beat at least one person in Iowa
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 15:00
|
|
|
Miltank posted:It really seems like beltway pundits and strategists are watching a different race then we are. The difference between Herman Cain and Ron Paul is pretty large, but not enough that it should alter O'Malley's strategy or his strategist's advice.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Adar posted:2016 Presidential Primary: Lindsay Graham is guaranteed to beat at least one person in Iowa
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Joementum posted:A candidate who can be relied on to scream at the top of his lungs about the necessity of military aid to Israel and bombing all of its neighbors. Also, banning online gambling so that Sheldon has no competition.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
AndNowMax posted:Jim Webb has a decent-ish shot at being Hilary's veep (wrap it up, Castroailures). Prior to Bernie putting up the Progressive Flag, maybe. He has no shot now because a Webb VP slot means instead of grumbling their way to the booth the Bernie voters stay home entirely. O'Malley's got a much better chance.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 5, 2015 09:44
|
|
|
Mrit posted:I don't think Trump will win either, but this is just sad. The much stronger argument is that under all the national polling that doesn't mean poo poo right now, Trump is busy losing Iowa. With Cruz over 20 in two consecutive polls and gaining nationally (this is more important for people who aren't Trump because it leads to visibility) he's got a very high chance to end it for Trump right there. Granted, that was before San Bernandino got ISIS'd so who knows what's going on right this second, but the real story has nothing to do with national polling and everything with Iowa polling, where it sure looks like 2012.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 21:44
|
|
|
Montasque posted:Agreed. Nate is probably right that Trump won't be the nominee, but his reasoning is wrong. He's hopeless in the long run either way but if he loses Iowa it's over on the spot, Dean-style.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I think they would be shocked, possibly appalled, that we kept the original thing running for over two hundred years instead of starting fresh every couple of generations. The original one only lasted 70-odd years. The one after that arguably only lasted 50 or 70 depending on whether you think the income tax or the Switch that Saved Nine was more important. This latest one's about due.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 7, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:We're finally at the point where early state polls are starting to be more predictive. I predict that I will be showing this graphic to lots and lots of the "Trump has no chance" people in a couple weeks. The problem with this graph is that Iowa is over a month later now than it has been in forever, so it's based on a bad metric. A "T-X days" graph looks a lot closer to reality but nobody's been pointing that out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 10, 2015 01:05
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Also, the problem with Nate and his crew is not that their model of the election might be statistically inaccurate, it's that they're asking the wrong question. Who will win this primary is not nearly as important as why it's happening this way, and that's not going to show up on the Cartesian plane. I'm also non-plussed at why 538 has sucked this cycle but not sure that that's the right question to ask either. We pretty much know why it's happening, since it's been happening this way for the past three elections at a minimum. They should instead be focusing on what happens if and when Trump fades at different points in the race. There are lots of places that are happy to tell me Trump won't win, but no one's trying to do the legwork on the difference between when he loses post Iowa and post Super Tuesday.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 15, 2015 13:47
|
|
|
Boosted_C5 posted:
There is some truth to this in that, when Trump fails, Hillary is going to get crushed with low income / uneducated whites and won't do better than a tie with millenials against pretty much anyone else (maybe not Cruz, young women might turn out against him.) This will be a serious problem for her and I'm beginning to believe she's not a favorite against a Rubio or other establishment guy. OTOH, no, not really, Trump is still a clown and it's a genuine shame he won't win because the GOP could use the resulting bloodletting to finally bury those people instead of letting it fester another cycle or two until an even bigger clown accidentally wins in a backlash year.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 17, 2015 23:30
|
|
|
Montasque posted:You really think those people will go away if they finally get 'their' candidate? Trump is the last person that would do it, because in this cycle he loses 60/40, which would be enough for a very lopsided GOP civil war and Old White Yeller to be dragged out back and never seen again. Four or eight years from now, the next clown (the not very well kept secret about the post 1992 and especially post 2008 GOP is that there is always a next clown) will probably not lose by nearly as large a margin. The problem is that sooner or later Murphy's Law will put a Dem version of GWB in the White House at the same time the clown wins the primary. That will not end well. Angry white voters are definitely shrinking over time so that alone won't do it, but if the next one is Hispanic and also not Cruz that would be extremely electorally problematic.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 18, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:I'm more confused about the notion that Jeb! is a favorite to win than I am the notion that Trump can't win. Pretty much no one likes Jeb! other than a small number of rich corporate and neocon donors. His favorability numbers are terrible even in comparison to someone like Romney who wasn't exactly loved by the base, his poll numbers have gotten consistently lower throughout the entire cycle and now average around 4%. He has zero charisma or political skill and constantly says mind-bendingly stupid things for a Republican candidate or any candidate running for President to say. Even his precious endorsements are relatively modest in number and come mostly from months ago before his campaign had entirely imploded, this is something that even Nate Silver has acknowledged. Theoretically, Jeb still has a decent path to the nom. Right around this point in 2008, McCain was in the low teens nationally, dead in Iowa and in the mid teens in NH: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/us/2008_republican_presidential_nomination-2741.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008 The problem with comparing the two is that John McCain was a certified war hero whom the press loved while Jeb is the most milquetoast candidate in a field with enough scrubs to start a TV show.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 13:28
|
|
|
Peel posted:now we have the benefit of distance, what the hell happened to walker Walker got torpedoed by Jeb entering the race and had all his donors and media attention stolen from under him. He was a legit threat until that point. I think the worst mistake he made all campaign was assuming Jeb was a thing that would stay solid and dropping out early.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 19, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
Squalid posted:After NH a bunch of third tier candidates are going to drop out and Trump's low favorability numbers make it more likely their supporters will consolidate around whatever establishment candidate performed best. 35% of the vote is okay for the first few primaries but to win the whole thing you really want 50%+, doubly so for Trump as he is likely to get screwed at the convention. In 1992 Bill Clinton lost the first four primaries but still ended up winning 51% of all votes. Also, Bill won because the first four primaries were won by 4 different people, Iowa was ignored by everyone not from there, the two following NH were Maine and South Dakota ie nobody cared about them either, and most of the South was packed into a 3 day stretch in early March right afterwards. Trump cannot lose a single early primary but also won't be facing a situation where all the other clowns split the vote for very long - by Nevada at the latest the field will be down to him and 2-3 other viable campaigns, probably exactly 1 by Super Tuesday as the establishment puts enormous pressure on everyone not named Trump Slayer to drop out.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 13:51
|
|
|
Kurt_Cobain posted:Still looking great for the Donald. Real GOP nominees don't win a loser state like Iowa anyway. It's a terrible result for everyone except Cruz, because it shows a big Cruz jump in SC that will only accelerate with time if nobody dogpiles on Cruz ASAP. Trump could just barely survive an Iowa loss but losing SC on top of it to the same candidate is 100% fatal. Each of the other dozen candidates must either win at least one primary out of the first four or have Trump win 3/4+ to have a prayer, so Cruz sucking the non-Trump oxygen out of the room is equally bad news. What this poll says to me is that Rubio is in trouble, Kasich and Christie had better get used to living in NH, and Jeb should probably give up now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
Mitt Romney posted:The polls don't look horrible for the moderate candidates its just they are split among a lot of the candidates. The field will be smaller by Iowa and definitely NH. If Kasich, Fiorina and another one drops out then they are looking decent. For a moderate to win without winning NH, they probably have to finish second to Trump. If Cruz wins Iowa, is second in NH and then wins SC again it's gg, and right now it looks like he'll (flame out or) probably max out around 20-25 in NH meaning some moderate has to break that. With this poll as a baseline it will be very hard for any of them to do it even with everyone else in their lane gone. The alternative is everybody forgets about Trump and tries to destroy Cruz right now. The portion of the field with a clue should realize this so my assumption is there should be a lot of opposition research being done. If none of it pans out in the next month they're going to hand him the nom.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 18:27
|
|
|
Christie has a path to the nom, because if he wins NH he probably also wins Nevada (gaming state) and then rides that into national relevance. It's not totally out of the question, though it's probably not > 2-3%. Cruz is just trying to ride the Trump wave to the top without getting crushed underneath it. He's run a phenomenal campaign so far and it's working really well. I think part of the reason I've become so bullish on him so fast is he's the only one who is actively trying to win the primary and general at the same time instead of flailing around waiting for somebody else to take care of Trump for him. Every single thing he's done since getting his Senate seat has gotten him a step closer. He's pretty much GOP House of Cards IRL.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
GE Cruz will say whatever gets him .01% closer to winning, but he's also smart and used to debate settings, which means instead of tacking to the center (which would cost him points) he will just spend six months dogwhistling the gently caress out of every possible talking point while sounding nice instead.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 23:00
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Fun fact: my grandfather was the government official in charge of the renovations to the rink if your grandfather hosed up the deal and literally enabled a Trump campaign anecdote, your mission is to use the time machine to go back and murder youre fam
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Boosted_C5 posted:Trump is at 39% with registered and likely voters now. I just wanna remind the blood for the blood throne faction from the last page that Trump was up by 7 points in Iowa over some effectively zero name recognition people and Scott Walker three months ago, up by 5 to a slightly more with it Herman Cain II two months ago, up 7 when that guy duly cratered last month and is now down 5 to the first legitimate candidate to actually lead in Iowa at any point since Trump entered the race. This shift, where he's held very steady at his 25-30 point ceiling while the first person to consolidate support with the religious right surged to 35%+, happened over less than a month. As soon as a non-Trump wins Iowa (this part is now very likely) he is going to drop (this part is inevitable) and if the drop is severe enough that he loses NH (this part is > 50% at this point) his best chance of winning a primary will be when the race is over. I mean I like schaudenfreude as much as the next guy and Nate's articles are really bad for whatever reason, but if you're paying attention the emperor hasn't had any clothes for weeks now.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 18:45
|
|
|
I agree Cruz won't be a gimme. Based on what he's doing and how he's doing it right now he is very easy to underestimate and extremely good at what he does.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Romney won it in 2012 (sure okay Santorum actually did but by the time they figured that out it was a month later and the headlines had moved on) Obama '08 Kerry '04
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Fooled by Randomness is probably the best book ever written on the subject so this is sort of disappointing 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
fishmech posted:Remember when Fiorina was considered viable? What site is that?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:Are the bets in monopoly money or do you actually have money riding on this shitshow? I'm aware it's illegal to bet on US elections but it's not like that's stopping anyone online. I don't recognize that market but PredictIt.org is legal in the US (and Betfair is legal for those of us outside it).
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 02:01
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/680118305449996293 The real question is whether this is intentional (of course it is)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
 The real question is whether this is intentional (of course it is)
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2015 00:36
|
|
|
mannerup posted:
I too celebrate Christmas by giving someone I don't support money and then posting a picture of my poo poo on the internet
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2015 02:12
|
|
|
Louisgod posted:I also have an SA account Mine's free 
|
|
#
¿
Dec 25, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Clearly it's the man who has a sex act named after him
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 18:44
|
|
|
ARG is okay. Internal polls are grain of salt-worthy at best, though, especially internals that wildly vary from the same group doing a poll that made RCP a week ago. Still, as far as campaigns on life support go, that result is pretty good.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 00:05 |
|
|
Pinterest Mom posted:American Research Group are some of the worst pollsters around. Jewel Repetition posted:538 gives American Research Group a C minus http://fivethirtyeight.com/interactives/pollster-ratings/ This is one of the places Nate isn't always right. If you look at his chart, their polls are slightly more off than most -but- they have virtually no bias. Rasmussen gets a better grade than them despite having one of the largest biases in the entire database. If I have one poll that I know is off by 7 points in no particular direction, having a poll that's off by 5 and also +GOP by 2.5 is better. If I have ten polls, the first one is much better. The preceeding paragraph is completely useless to anyone who doesn't bet on elections but there you go.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2015 21:58
|
|