PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bam Bam Baklava said:
HotJi5m.png


What the fuck kind of poll is this? A lot of states don't even allow independents to vote in the party primaries.
Click to expand...

D + I = 825. But the total n = 966. Where are the other 141 people coming from? The GOP? What's going on here?

I don't understand why you'd do this kind of poll for a primary.

Honestly, the polling this cycle has looked shitty in terms of approach. I have a feeling that a lot of companies are trying to "differentiate" themselves from the pack by introducing new bullshit. This isn't a good thing. Too many polls look too weird when you look at the crosstabs. Not saying this because Hillary should be ahead or something, just noticing that there are weird things going on. like polling the GOP for a Democratic Party primary...
 
NYCmetsfan said:
That's a legit question! I'm just opposing the thought that schumer in this instance stabed him in the back. He didn't do damage.
Click to expand...

Having met the guy I'd like to think he would whip for Obama, regardless of his own vote, but the truth is that might be wishful thinking on my part. Given his relationship with Reed, I'd put money on him having been sure of the outcome, and asking if it was ok, before coming out against it though.

Retromelon said:
I've been keeping quiet about it because I know no one clicks on this thread to hear my bullshit but since you asked...
I haven't seen many lately. A day or two ago i looked in the corner of my room, and i saw a big, dead one (all the ones i get are big and round and fat. Ugh) keeled over with its legs up in the air. It must have been an outside party. The spiders are my only allies in this war
Letthemfight.gif
Click to expand...

Gotta get them roach motels, trap 'em in that pincer move.

Black Mamba said:
D + I = 825. But the total n = 966. Where are the other 141 people coming from? The GOP? What's going on here?

I don't understand why you'd do this kind of poll for a primary.

Honestly, the polling this cycle has looked shitty in terms of approach. I have a feeling that a lot of companies are trying to "differentiate" themselves from the pack by introducing new bullshit. This isn't a good thing. Too many polls look too weird when you look at the crosstabs. Not saying this because Hillary should be ahead or something, just noticing that there are weird things going on. like polling the GOP for a Democratic Party primary...
Click to expand...

I've noticed something similar. There's still outfits doing more standard stuff, but it does seem like there's outfits that want to make the news too.
 
What do you guys feel about his Dred Scott argument, specifically the idea that the courts can be devastatingly wrong about something and enshrine wrong/discriminatory views into law - and thus those laws should be opposed or broken by the people.
 
B-Dubs said:
I've noticed something similar. There's still outfits doing more standard stuff, but it does seem like there's outfits that want to make the news too.
Click to expand...

It's so bizarre. Just look at that poll. For the numbers to work, the "other," which I guess is GOP is showing polling of Hillary at 15%. Bernie at 8%. Biden at 1%.

That's less than 25% of these people opting to vote for anyone. What is the point of including these people? What information is being gained?

It's pure stupidity.
 
PhoenixDark said:
What do you guys feel about his Dred Scott argument, specifically the idea that the courts can be devastatingly wrong about something and enshrine wrong/discriminatory views into law - and thus those laws should be opposed or broken by the people.
Click to expand...

For the most part, we are a system of laws. If we don't like what the SCOTUS ruled, we have a legal remedy. We just need to pass a new law or an Amendment (yes I know it is difficult) depending n the situation but the SCOTUS isn't unchecked.

His argument is wrong in that it's the law of the land, still, because we used an Amendment to overturn it.


Having said that, of course I reserve the right to ignore anything that is morally repugnant. Just like military personnel are obligated to ignore morally repugnant orders. If an officer tells you to murder and rape a captive, and you do it, you are wrong.

But the SCOTUS isn't going to create some random thing that does this. Even Dredd Scott did not. It's easy to view it in today's prism, but back when the ruling occurred, they were not going against the grain. It was the prevailing or at least close to it belief of the time. They were validating current repugnant morals.

To look at it any other way is ludicrous. Dredd Scott was a product of its time period. People like Mike Huckabee would have sang praises onto that ruling. Where Dredd Scott was a validation of an awful belief and maintaining status quo for the most part, Obergefell is a repudiation of one. Obergefell is Windsor. It is Brown vs Board. It is Texas v Lawrence. It is not Dredd Scott. It is not Plessy.
 
B-Dubs said:
Having met the guy I'd like to think he would whip for Obama, regardless of his own vote, but the truth is that might be wishful thinking on my part. Given his relationship with Reed, I'd put money on him having been sure of the outcome, and asking if it was ok, before coming out against it though.
Click to expand...

Maybe, but that scenario just seems odd to me. Looking at it strictly politically, it's far more likely for this to hurt him than help him. He'd never have a hard battle in the general, but he might turn the primary from uncontested into something has to at least fight for, just like Cuomo recently had to.

And publicly coming out against does hurt the party no matter how you look at it. You give the republican talking points a lot more credence when you have someone in democratic leadership like that saying the exact same things.

It pretty much has to be a strongly held personal belief for him to do this in the first place, but if that's the case, why would that personal belief go away if they no longer have the votes?
 
People really gotta watch out for Ben Carson. He's the only candidate that could retain the white voter advantage of the GOP but still cut into the non-white vote just enough to make a difference.

He's also trying to position himself as a positive candidate. I don't remember much about Herman Cain but he seemed to be a pretty negative campaigner.
 
It's kind of unfortunate that this Iran stuff has almost completely overshadowed the reestablishment of diplomatic ties with Cuba.

Geopolitically, the Iran deal is certainly more significant, but domestically, I think the Cuba stuff is FAR more impactful.

That's not to say I wish the Iran deal didn't exist, just to be totally clear. I'm thrilled it exists.
 
Bam Bam Baklava said:
People really gotta watch out for Ben Carson. He's the only candidate that could retain the white voter advantage of the GOP but still cut into the non-white vote just enough to make a difference.

He's also trying to position himself as a positive candidate. I don't remember much about Herman Cain but he seemed to be a pretty negative campaigner.
Click to expand...

Unless he learned how to debate in the last few weeks he's going down in flames in the next debate. Without a series of Trump counter-measures, and actual answers to questions, he is done.
 
B-Dubs said:
Unless he learned how to debate in the last few weeks he's going down in flames in the next debate. Without a series of Trump counter-measures, and actual answers to questions, he is done.
Click to expand...

A lot of people think he actually did well in the first debate. His "shtick" is working.
 
Bam Bam Baklava said:
People really gotta watch out for Ben Carson. He's the only candidate that could retain the white voter advantage of the GOP but still cut into the non-white vote just enough to make a difference.

He's also trying to position himself as a positive candidate. I don't remember much about Herman Cain but he seemed to be a pretty negative campaigner.
Click to expand...

He's not going to get any more of the non-white vote than if he were a white guy. His skin may be black but when people hear him talk about post-racial America, deny the existence of institutionalized racism, and blame most of the issues with cops on the "thugs", they know what's up.
 
Bam Bam Baklava said:
A lot of people think he actually did well in the first debate. His "shtick" is working.
Click to expand...

They think he won because he gave a funny answer at the very end, answered no other questions and was attacked by no one, which led to a good image. He's not going to be invisible this time so he won't be able to skate by with a single joke at the end like last time.
 
PlayALLtheGames said:
He's not going to get any more of the non-white vote than if he were a white guy. His skin may be black but when people hear him talk about post-racial America, deny the existence of institutionalized racism, and blame most of the issues with cops on the "thugs", they know what's up.
Click to expand...

I saw a short video of him talking about Ferguson and he brought an empathy to that issue that none of the other Republicans can match. In the general election I can see him getting 10 - 15% of the African American vote. I do think there are enough Republicans who won't vote for a minority that it won't matter though.
 
PlayALLtheGames said:
He's not going to get any more of the non-white vote than if he were a white guy. His skin may be black but when people hear him talk about post-racial America, deny the existence of institutionalized racism, and blame most of the issues with cops on the "thugs", they know what's up.
Click to expand...

Well, in fairness to me I'm basing it all on just two polls (PPP and CNN) where he seems to be doing best. The cross tabs show he does about 10% better with non-whites.

Could end up being nothing.
 
PhoenixDark said:
What do you guys feel about his Dred Scott argument, specifically the idea that the courts can be devastatingly wrong about something and enshrine wrong/discriminatory views into law - and thus those laws should be opposed or broken by the people.
Click to expand...

By Huckabee's reasoning, literally every Supreme Court decision could, and perhaps should, be ignored and opposed by anyone who feels like it, for whatever reason (although especially religious reasons). At which point you have to ask, why do you even have a Supreme Court or judicial oversight if it should be totally ok for people to choose to ignore, without consequences, whatever rulings they don't like? How do you protect the rights delineated in the Constitution if the judiciary has no authority to do so?
 
Reuters is a mess today. It seems their actual, real, not-online poll is this one:

Clinton leads Sanders nationally among Democrats by eight percentage points, 39 percent to 31 percent, her smallest cushion since the nominating battle began for the November 2016 election. She led Sanders by 20 percentage points in the online poll a week ago

Biden is in third place at 16 percent in the Reuters/Ipsos poll, about where he was a week ago.
Click to expand...

The Reuters/Ipsos poll surveyed 668 Democrats Sept. 7-11 and had a credibility interval of 4.4 percentage points.
Click to expand...

http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/11/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN0RB2BG20150911

The NYTimes just reported on it so it seems legit.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2015/09/11/us/politics/11reuters-usa-election-poll.html

Poor Hillary.

giphy.gif
 
What do you guys think about Carson/Fiorina being propped up to serve as VPs for whoever actually wins? I've been skeptical of Cain/Palin and now Carson/Fiorina being given so much attention. It just seems like a pathetic attempt to pander at minority voters as if to say "see? We have minority support too!" Does anyone REALLY expect the Republican establishment to support a female or black male for President? No way. But what if that person served behind a white man?
 
Melkr_ said:
Reuters is a mess today. It seems their actual, real, not-online poll is this one:





http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/11/us-usa-election-poll-idUSKCN0RB2BG20150911

The NYTimes just reported on it so it seems legit.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2015/09/11/us/politics/11reuters-usa-election-poll.html

Poor Hillary.

giphy.gif
Click to expand...

I wouldn't worry too much about Hillary until Bernie actually starts seeing some movement his way in the African-american vote.

Also, that gif is horrible and you should stop trying to make it a thing.

EDIT: I'd go into the crosstabs and check on the "likely democratic primary voter" before you celebrate as that has Hillary 23 points above Bernie. Being popular among people who aren't going to vote in the primary isn't going to help him.

EDIT2: There's not a whole lot in those crosstabs for Bernie to be excited about to tell the truth.
 
Melkr_ said:
giphy.gif
Click to expand...

There's a certain irony to me posting this, but this gif is so stupid and makes no sense in the context of anything with these polls (it doesn't even seem like she's running from anything?), please stop posting it or find something.

This is the only thing I'll do to wade into what's now become Pop Poli GAF.
 
BertramCooper said:
It's kind of unfortunate that this Iran stuff has almost completely overshadowed the reestablishment of diplomatic ties with Cuba.

Geopolitically, the Iran deal is certainly more significant, but domestically, I think the Cuba stuff is FAR more impactful.

That's not to say I wish the Iran deal didn't exist, just to be totally clear. I'm thrilled it exists.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

If nothing else, the baseball teams have gotta be salivating.
:P

dramatis said:
When did the thread title change? lol
Click to expand...

It hasn't...?
 
PhoenixDark said:
What do you guys feel about his Dred Scott argument, specifically the idea that the courts can be devastatingly wrong about something and enshrine wrong/discriminatory views into law - and thus those laws should be opposed or broken by the people.
Click to expand...

I feel that anyone compelled by this argument is a fucking idiot. Aside from the obvious point that courts don't always get things right (like we don't know that; look at Citizens United), Dred Scott was a decision that took away rights while the gay marriage ruling was one that gave rights. Simple as that. Anyone with a brain can immediately distinguish that one hurts people and one helps them, so there is no reason for anyone to oppose the ruling.
 
Retromelon said:
I've been keeping quiet about it because I know no one clicks on this thread to hear my bullshit but since you asked...
I haven't seen many lately. A day or two ago i looked in the corner of my room, and i saw a big, dead one (all the ones i get are big and round and fat. Ugh) keeled over with its legs up in the air. It must have been an outside party. The spiders are my only allies in this war
Letthemfight.gif
Click to expand...

This has done wonders for my house.
 
What is happening here. Where is reality? Poor Bernie lol. I still wish he didn't call himself socialist... Also lol Rick Perry.
 
BertramCooper said:
Jindal has to be next, right?

I think Graham's Iran outage is going to keep him in for a stupidly long time.
Click to expand...
Jindal is doing a hail mary and poking Trump in the eye in the hopes that Trump will say something outrageous, thereby giving Jindal some exposure. Its pathetic really. You can practically hear Jindal's true believers in the room saying "if only the American people heard him, he will be our President!"
 
RustyNails said:
Jindal is doing a hail mary and poking Trump in the eye in the hopes that Trump will say something outrageous, thereby giving Jindal some exposure. Its pathetic really. You can practically hear Jindal's true believers in the room saying "if only the American people heard him, he will be our President!"
Click to expand...

who?
 
I am not misquoting anything, I dont know why you´ll are coming for me. I even acknowledged that Reuters was being really messy today.

I-feel-very-attacked-laganja-mister-scandal-.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT2| Well, maybe McMaster isn't a traitor.
397 398 399 400 401
20K
2M
ShadowSwordmaster replied
Football Thread 2017/18 |OT2| Fractured but Ox
166 167 168 169 170
8K
550K
Hideous Snake replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
Formula 1 2017 Season |OT2| A Dutch Horror Story - Sundays on Sky
54 55 56 57 58
3K
343K
Grieves replied
Top Bottom