balladofwindfishes
Member
lol, I picked 1948 out of a hat for my joke post and it turns out that was the largest presidential upset of them all
Uhh... maybe I subconsciously knew that
Uhh... maybe I subconsciously knew that
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
- Thread starter aspiegamer
- Start date
- Status
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
Oh did he? Haha, oh well. I thought he just called the election result.
There's always an invisible primary, it's just more expansive in some years than others, and usually it happens so quietly that you never even know someone was thinking of running. Who do we know got "scared off" by Clinton? Probably plenty of people, but we don't know their names (Biden, arguably, despite the death of his son i think he would have gone for it if the other contenders were less challenging than Clinton).
Weren't that many Dems in good position to run last year. A field without Clinton might have attracted Warren, Castro, or Booker, but few enough others.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Dummycrats will only win one GOP-held Tossup seat, but somehow we'll hold all of our own.
His model says we only pick up CA-49 and FL-27. These results do not exist in a vacuum! There are very few universes where we don't make any substantial gains and yet open seat MN-1 stays blue.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
These models always coincidentally "only miss" 1948 and 2000
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
Not really. His prediction model is based around whether the incumbent party will retain the White House or lose it. He might have separately predicted Trump would win the popular vote, but that's not what his "13 keys" thing was about.
The problem with that system though is that several of the keys are fairly subjective.
Randolph Freelander
Member
Was that line of attack effective, or was it 25 years of right wing propaganda taking hold combined with newly unleashed nonsense from alternative facts outlets aligned with Russian interests?
Hillary had baggage that, quite frankly, it would be unreasonable to expect any candidate to have again for a while, compounded by her inability to get out of her own way with her entirely too guarded public persona.
Let Patrick run. If he's ineffective, he'll lose in the primary. If he wins, Bernie Bros better be on board, or they deserve the second term of Trump even more than the first.
The worst.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
What? He said his model correct predicted Al Gore winning.
Sirpopopop
Member
The ones I know certainly do.
It was very effective in the '12 general against Romney!
Trump was immune to a bunch of stuff because he was a faux-populist liar. That won't be the case in 2020 regardless of who their nominee is, so you need to make sure it's an attack you can credibly make against that person!
whyamihere
Banned
I mean, I'm not yelling, it's the internet. You're the one who decided to come in here and post Random Math Dude's super cool Surefire Model! and then defend it with such conviction by saying.
A lot of these people won't vote because it's a midterm election and trying to model what that election is going to look like in an LV model is going to be tricky regardless. Of the "not sures", you have to dive into demographics to look at how at how they might lean or which way they might lean partisan wise.
Anyways, this works both ways:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features...r-model-is-more-bullish-than-others-on-trump/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-invisible-undecided-voter/
The high number of undecideds means that you're either looking at a more at-parity election or that Dems have more of a landslide. But unlike the 2016 election, we also have Trump's job approval numbers, which are highly predictive in terms of midterm electorate.
So yes, while it's possible that a high number of undecideds means that the GOP is closer than you think, you can't just ignore the fact that people are saying undecided. That's not how polling works. And then when you compare Trump's approval rating with how Democrats are doing in special elections in 2017, it paints a much different picture (with like, actual numbers!) than Math Dude's numbers.
Again, I'm bearish on the House, but I'm also sick of Math Dudes coming in with this One Trick that will predict everything! based on no track record. See how your model does in 2018, my dude.
(And something else about Trump's approval ratings lately? Number of undecideds has gone down. It gives it much less uncertainty)
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
Ah, you're right. But his description of the model says repeatedly it determines whether the incumbent party will retain or not. And he just claims Gore as an anomaly. But of course he also claims Trump as a correct prediction, so it's just bullshit really.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
I think I addressed this--bringing in interest groups and really getting a handle on where private positions diverge from public ones and the important role of interest groups in keeping the party grounded--in the first post, but if your position is that the Democratic party shouldn't compete in any state where they can't run a candidate who is destined to get a 100% NARAL rating, then the game is over because there are maybe 75-100 Democratic seats in the country by that standard.
RumbleHumble
Banned
Republicans, eh. Pro-Life Advocates, yes.
Poodlestrike
Banned
The loop on this (and why I thought defining anti-choice separately from anti-abortion, btw) is that if you want to minimize the number of abortions, making it harder for women to get them safely and legally is about the worst possible way of going about it. Abortion still carries a stigma, and most people who feel that they need one will still get one, they'll just have a much worse time of it. So the number of "murdered" babies is gonna remain roughly constant.
Most anti-choice politicians are notably thin on answers to this problem, such as improved availability of birth control and better sex-ed.
The bolded is because, in many cases, such "solutions" are also against the religious beliefs that underlie the objection to abortion.
Box of Kittens
Banned
According to his Twitter profile and blog, the person who did this model is not a statistician, but rather an undergraduate studying government.
It also sounds to me like this model may not be validated, which is a big no-no. The Bickers-Berry model which showed Romney winning easily and conservatives touted so much in 2012 had eye-popping performance in "predicting" elections prior to 2012, because that's the data the model was built with. That model was unvalidated, and unsurprisingly it was way off the mark in 2012.
Color me skeptical about this model.
Even better, he only decided that the model predicts the popular vote after the 2000 election, when it said Gore would win.
It also sounds to me like this model may not be validated, which is a big no-no. The Bickers-Berry model which showed Romney winning easily and conservatives touted so much in 2012 had eye-popping performance in "predicting" elections prior to 2012, because that's the data the model was built with. That model was unvalidated, and unsurprisingly it was way off the mark in 2012.
Color me skeptical about this model.
Even better, he only decided that the model predicts the popular vote after the 2000 election, when it said Gore would win.
Poodlestrike
Banned
I mean, it's not like these people are particularly good Christians, either. Misogyny fits way better with their overall behavior patterns.
The point is that if you wanted, really wanted, to reduce the number of abortions, banning them is very nearly the worst way to go about doing that.
balladofwindfishes
Member
I'm not really sure how someone can be pro-life and not believe this
The concept is that human life begins at conception. Ergo, if you have an abortion, you've killed that human. Which is murder.
It's likely why people, even some liberals, are hesitant on abortion. Once you start believing it's murder, you have to find ways to either justify that murder isn't that bad in this situation, or justify that the clump of cells isn't human. The latter is a lot easier to get over than the former, but still, it's a block that stops people from re-considering their views. Especially if your peers will view you as a murderer.
And also with that, if you view pro-choice people are murderers, it becomes very hard to support them. Who would support murderers?
More liberal changes in thinking on abortion have moved at a glacial pace in the US.
Sure. I think it's quite arguable that abortion at some points may be killing (murder is definitionally unlawful).
No, you're right. But people shouldn't be treating it as a good thing or a model for the party! Biden's from a blue state!
Plus, as a corallary to Biden's career has been the polarization of abortion as a political issue. Look at Hyde votes over time; they've shifted from being pretty evenly split between parties to being practically entirely GOP/Dem sorted. Biden's evolved with the political environment.
Murder is murder. The pro-life goal will never be to find a way to have 'safe, correct murder.' It will be to end murder entirely. This is a rhetorical solution in search of a question.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Texas' abortion pseudo-bans did dramatically reduce the rate of abortion fwiw.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
Delaware is a blue state (I live here), but it is not as liberal as its national reputation implies. It's only blue because of New Castle County, the other 2 counties are very conservative and much more rural in general. Even NCC has a large number of Catholics and suburban Christian moderately liberal families who are not friendly to abortion, especially decades ago when Biden was running for office (and not as a many-year incumbent).
Poodlestrike
Banned
I mean, it dramatically reduced the rate of reported abortions in Texas. We don't actually know about the real numbers.
Well, this is where it becomes important to remember that the actual mainstream abortion position is "it's complicated."
Asking people whether they're pro-choice or pro-life produces a consistent divide. At the same time, 80% of Americans support abortions in the first trimester or in the case of medical necessity, rape, etc. A similar percentage thinks partial-birth abortions should be banned.
So it's not really correct to argue that most Americans believe that life begins at conception and it's immediately
murder to get rid of it. Most Americans believe that the topic is fuzzy and there's no bright line, but they're comfortable with early abortions and less comfortable with late ones.
So am I, frankly! But I'm willing to assume that the people having late abortions are making a tough decision that is right for them, rather than to assume I know better than they do.
Tbh, that describes just about every blue state in the nation. Bar, maybe, Vermont?
cartoon_soldier
Member
Is it me or the revelation that Trump basically wrote the Don Jr. statement has hardly caused any ripples?
Prof. Bathtub
Member
There's Messaging to worry about. jk, but I don't know with that and the Fox stuff jockeying for attention.
Emerson
May contain jokes =>
That's fair, but the second half of the post is more relevant really. It's not an especially pro-choice state even now, even in the most liberal part of the state. Decades ago when Biden was having to run for office by doing anything more than saying "Hey, it's me, Joe! You know me well because Delaware has a population of like six people!" abortion was an even harder sell here.
Box of Kittens
Banned
At the very least you should only use a subset of the available data to build your model and then see how it performs on the data you left out. It's not as good as testing out how it predicts a new election, but it's certainly better than nothing and people with these "OMG amazingly accurate models" never do it (which is part of why the models are so "accurate").
Also, modeling individual House races is really fucking hard. Nate Silver tried in 2010 and his model did quite terribly, to the point where he hasn't even tried since. And Nate Silver is a damn good modeler.
I mean... it all but feels like we've forgotten the underlying collusion meeting/e-mail
I hear you. As the party has shifted to being much more cosmopolitan and urban-based, not coincidentally, the politics and partisanship of abortion have also shifted along with it. (Which was the chicken and which was the egg - I'm not sure)
balladofwindfishes
Member
I think this was more about hardcore single issue abortion voters, rather than most people. Generally, the group of people labeled "pro-life" are against any and all forms of abortion with maybe some exceptions for rape and life or death situations for the woman.
I also share your opinions on abortion, though. Late term ones make me very uncomfortable, but if a woman feels that's best for her, then so be it.
Dummycrats will only win one GOP-held Tossup seat, but somehow we'll hold all of our own.
His model says we only pick up CA-49 and FL-27. These results do not exist in a vacuum! There are very few universes where we don't make any substantial gains and yet open seat MN-1 stays blue.
In my amateur opinion, this seems like a hell of a lot of seats that are still lean/likely Republican.
Whenever I see someone post one of those Sabato lists with two dozen names listed in red as supposed good news for a D wave next year, I have to wonder how exactly all that red portends a D wave at all?
Bonen no Max'd
Banned
Even if you accept that it's acceptable to be bad on abortion rights in order to win elections, there isn't really any sort of evidence that anti-choice candidates are going to be big successes in GOP territory. In 2016 Democrats won three new congressional seats in districts Trump won (NV-3, NJ-5, and NH-1) and Rosen, Shea-Porter, and Gottheimer are all completely pro-choice (Gottheimer is gross otherwise though, his website says we need to emulate Reagan and O'Neill's work to "fix" the tax code *barf*). Of the Democrats that won in Trump districts, iirc a third of them are members of the CPC members, the same that are part of the New Democrats Caucus iirc. There isn't really any sort of common thread of Democrats being successful in Republican districts.
Of course, maybe you're arguing that Steve King will be taken down by some Democrat who talks about how much they hate abortion all the time but I'm pretty skeptical of that.
Of course, maybe you're arguing that Steve King will be taken down by some Democrat who talks about how much they hate abortion all the time but I'm pretty skeptical of that.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
The entire point of putting a pro-life candidate out there is to make Republicans who are embarrassed by Trump too unmotivated to come out and vote.
White liberal women don't need to be inspired to vote for a Dem because they're all going to vote against the GOP because they hate Trump.
B(lack voters may need to be inspired but that is not related to this discussion)
But it could easily be the case that running moderate Dems would be electorally successful.
It just has to do with whether it's right or not to do.
White liberal women don't need to be inspired to vote for a Dem because they're all going to vote against the GOP because they hate Trump.
B(lack voters may need to be inspired but that is not related to this discussion)
But it could easily be the case that running moderate Dems would be electorally successful.
It just has to do with whether it's right or not to do.
You're almost never going to see a race with an entrenched incumbent shift to leaning the other way. The only way is if you have tons of polling showing them doing terribly.
2016 would suggest otherwise. Well, white college educated women, I guess.
We'll see.
My first problem with this strategy is that I simply don't think it will work and risks alienating your base and undermining the grassroots energy.
Mueller is aware, that is all that matters.
Also - what is the point. 4 years from now you've muddied the party's messaging on abortion rights, encouraged this creep to the right (that pigeon very smartly points out), and have thrown your base and their basic rights under the bus. And no one has really provided evidence that this kind of lip service even works.
My point is that the conversation often goes on the fact that about 50% of people say they're "pro-life," but at least 60% of those people support abortions in the first trimester. They are not the rabid "ban all abortions" people -- those folks are a small minority, despite driving conservative abortion policy.
Random Human
They were trying to grab your prize. They work for the mercenary. The masked man.
I still think there's a second related scoop incoming.
Almost like this is the sort of thing that needs to be tailored to an individual electorate?
If only we had some sort of local internal competition to decide whether that's a good idea for them!
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Pretty sure we won all white liberal women.
Our issue was with white conservative women where we got killed.
I mean, you can point this out the other way though too.
50% of Democrats support some abortion restrictions. I'm pretty sure most of the Democrats would be happy or fine with a bill that banned abortions after 20 weeks with exceptions for life of the mother, rape, incest, or the baby likely dying soon after birth.
But the Dems have actually pushed for no abortion restrictions whatsoever.
It is more polarized in national politics than in reality. No major voter group supports their party's stance on abortion.
Polling on abortion is shit.
Like 80% of Americans support 'abortion with some restrictions' which could describe anything from the Roe v Wade status quo to 'rape, incest, life of the mother ONLY'. Or, in other words, a position that encompasses both parties' platforms.
What are you referring to? The big push in 2016 I saw was on Hyde
Like 80% of Americans support 'abortion with some restrictions' which could describe anything from the Roe v Wade status quo to 'rape, incest, life of the mother ONLY'. Or, in other words, a position that encompasses both parties' platforms.
What are you referring to? The big push in 2016 I saw was on Hyde
Air Force to purchase bankrupt Russian airline's planes for Air Force One: report
Doesn't sound like the planes actually made it into Russian hands, but that's quite the headline.
I would argue it's actually not that polarized in national politics -- the national policy remains "abortions should be legal but restricting some abortions should also be legal" and hasn't moved in decades, which is also the mainstream position.
It's extremely polarized in state politics.
Aaron Strife
Banned
It means Democrats have much more opportunity.
Look at how many GOP-held tossup seats there are compared to the Democrats', 11 versus 3. Even if you just split those down the middle, Democrats come out 4 seats ahead (5 ahead when you factor in that FL-27 is considered Lean D).
Often in wave elections, one side pretty much runs the tables, so you could imagine in a good environment that we win all of the Tossups and pick up a chunk of those Lean Rs and maybe even one or two Likely Rs.
The important thing is that those GOP lists have been getting longer and longer throughout Trump's presidency. Lean Rs being moved to Tossup, Likely Rs being moved to Lean R, and Safe R seats that would never be competitive in a normal election suddenly have an outside chance at flipping. This is encouraging because it's rare that the House flips simply by winning all of the most competitive-on-paper seats, it's because other seats that shouldn't be competitive suddenly are. KY-6 is a good example of this - Sabato has it rated as Likely Republican, but Democrats just landed a great candidate in a district that still votes for Democrats downballot occasionally.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked