• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2014 |OT| Kay Hagan and the Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad News

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

Oblivion

Fetishing muscular manly men in skintight hosery
I used to like Nate until I learned that he's a libertarian. Now I take everything he says with a grain of salt.
 
P

pigeon

Banned
Black Mamba said:
When you give something a probability of winning with an error, you actually know the margin of victory predicted.

For example, if you're predicting a 75% chance of winning with 3% error, you're essentially calling it a 51-49 final outcome (or something like 49-47 if there's a 3rd party).

This is for an individual race, not a probability of holding the senate.
Click to expand...

Sure, I agree. In these races that margin prediction isn't exposed, though, and I think it would be more useful to say "well, Wang predicted 51% and it was 49%" or "and it was 40%" than "Wang predicted a 75% chance of a win and actually it was a loss." Information gets lost.

Basically, I think that you're right about the information present in the model, but benji is right about the information that's being communicated.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
pigeon said:
Sure, I agree. In these races that margin prediction isn't exposed, though, and I think it would be more useful to say "well, Wang predicted 51% and it was 49%" or "and it was 40%" than "Wang predicted a 75% chance of a win and actually it was a loss." Information gets lost.

Basically, I think that you're right about the information present in the model, but benji is right about the information that's being communicated.
Click to expand...

As usual, I agree with you,
 
C

Cat

Member
Protein said:
Wendy Davis vs. Greg Abbott debate streaming tonight at 6pm CT.

http://www.wendydavistexas.com/debate/

Think it's thread worthy for TexasGAF?
Click to expand...

I say go for it. I think it'd be good if for no other reason to remind other Texans on GAF that there's an election this year, and it's really important to participate. If no one else is really interested, the topic will just drop off and disappear. Not a bad price to pay to just let people know it's happening, even if they just scan the headline.
 
T

teiresias

Member
So I asked this earlier:

teiresias said:
Chances of the ballots being printed with an unfortunate "misprint" that leaves Taylor on?
Click to expand...

and today we get this:

Dave Helling
@dhellingkc
KAN SoS office says 67 ballots with Chad Taylor's name on them were sent to overseas voters. "Corrective action has already been taken."
 
W

WayneMorse

Banned
Man if Charlie Crist manages to lose to fucking Rick Scott I'm gonna be pissed.


I've given up all hope here in Ohio for a Dem victory in any of the statewide offices though I'm absentee voting in a week or two and I'll be voting Dem right down the ticket for what it's worth. God I can't believe Josh Mandel is going to be re-elected as Treasurer, that little shit.
 
I

ivysaur12

Banned
WayneMorse said:
Man if Charlie Crist manages to lose to fucking Rick Scott I'm gonna be pissed.


I've given up all hope here in Ohio for a Dem victory in any of the statewide offices though I'm absentee voting in a week or two and I'll be voting Dem right down the ticket for what it's worth. God I can't believe Josh Mandel is going to be re-elected as Treasurer, that little shit.
Click to expand...

I think he's going to lose. And it's fucking depressing.
 
W

WayneMorse

Banned
FreezeSSC said:
Yeah it sucks I think most of Florida hates scott but crist being republican then independent and now democrat means he might not get many dems motivated enough to go out and vote.
Click to expand...

You would think having a governor not named Rick Scott might be a good enough motivator, I guess not.
 
V

Vahagn

Member
benjipwns said:
Seriously, you'd think people weren't complaining about me bringing up the COERCIVE VIOLENCE OF THE CORPORATE OLIGARCHY THAT IS THE STATE.

It's one thing to take me for a libertarian (the filthy statists!) since I allow it and I'm not a revolutionary, but it is weird that speculawyer and a couple others are calling me a conservative Republican recently. It's like people think there's only two teams...especially during election season...

REPUBLICANS ARE PART OF THE CORPORATE OLIGARCHY THAT CREATES THE ILLUSION YOU HAVE A CHOICE IN HOW IT USES COERCIVE VIOLENCE. READ MORE IN MY NEWSLETTERS. I MAY OR MAY NOT READ THE CONTENT OF THEM BEFORE THEY'RE SHIPPED OUT.
Click to expand...

I don't care about whether you're a Republican, I care about whether you're a conservative. As of now, these two terms seem to be synonymous, but they haven't always been and won't always be. For me, the entire history of the US is by and large a conflict between the progressive movement and the conservative movement with an apathetic unmotivated center. The political parties change constituency groups over time, it's about ideology.


Libertarians can be easier to stomach because they're traditionally more socially progressive than your average conservative, but because they need the conservative base to win elections, they're essentially as much a slave to that group as any conservative is. I also think of Libertarians as irrational ideologues, and you don't seem to be that at all.

Polling of Economics Professors consistently has a breakdown of something like 55-65% Democrat and only 3-5% Libertarian. That tells me that Libertarian economic policies are what I think they are, childish and irrational. Sure you have some prominant libertarian economists, but you also have scientists who posit that the earth is only 6000 years old, so that's not saying much.
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Man all of Kobach's antics just makes it painfully obvious how desperate the GOP is getting about the Kansas seat. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the state party was putting him up to it seeing as how his own reelection is a tossup at best and he probably can't afford looking like such a whiner.

Speaking of desperate whiners, Mike Rounds' behavior in South Dakota is a little bizarre. An outside Dem-affiliated group has spent 200k on ads attacking him over his EB-5 scandal, and he's running ads now saying it's a lie. Ads that restate the attack and just add "nuh-uh" at the end. I wonder if Democrats hit a real weakness here. The last time PPP polled the state, Rounds was only up by 6, and in a two-way with third party candidates excluded, by 3 over the Democrat Rick Weiland. Maybe we'll have another Kansas on our hands.
 
V

Vahagn

Member
Aaron Strife said:
Man all of Kobach's antics just makes it painfully obvious how desperate the GOP is getting about the Kansas seat. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if the state party was putting him up to it seeing as how his own reelection is a tossup at best and he probably can't afford looking like such a whiner.

Speaking of desperate whiners, Mike Rounds' behavior in South Dakota is a little bizarre. An outside Dem-affiliated group has spent 200k on ads attacking him over his EB-5 scandal, and he's running ads now saying it's a lie. Ads that restate the attack and just add "nuh-uh" at the end. I wonder if Democrats hit a real weakness here. The last time PPP polled the state, Rounds was only up by 6, and in a two-way with third party candidates excluded, by 3 over the Democrat Rick Weiland. Maybe we'll have another Kansas on our hands.
Click to expand...

Everything the GOP has done for the last decade is about desperation.

1) They've segregated districts by age and race, 2) they've attempted to neutralize the fundraising advantage that Dems have with average middle class donors with Citizens United, and 3) they've attempted to keep poor people and minorities away from the polling booths with Voter ID.

Every single one of these efforts weakens our core democratic process but they whole heartedly accept them as solutions to deal with the browning of america. Rather than changing their policies to be more inclusive of minorities and immigrants, they're attempting to neutralize their political effectiveness.
 
V

Vahagn

Member
20120503_FedBudgDebt4.png



Progressives are just so much better at governing that conservatives, it's really not even close.


privatejobgrowth.png


SOOOOOOO much better
 
A

Aaron Strife

Banned
Btw I think Crist will win. Scott's only leading because he hammered Crist for months, who's only started advertising recently. Scott's ads didn't help himself though, it just hurt Crist.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
zero shift said:
Unless the state is a deep blue state like Vermont or a deep red state like Wyoming there is no point. The real conflict in America isn't North vs South, it's country vs city with a hint of race.
Click to expand...

Vermont was deep red till the 80s. FYI

And the second thing is a north-south divide, its how the two areas are by and large organized. Yes, there are rural areas in the north but they don't have the weight in the north they do in the south.


Also
@Schriock1
Tonight’s debate made one thing clear-@WendyDavisTexas is the only candidate for governor who stands on the side of Texas women and families
Click to expand...

beli.png
 
Z

zero shift

Banned
APKmetsfan said:
Vermont was deep red till the 80s. FYI
Click to expand...

Republicans Nixon and prior were very different from Republicans of today.

APKmetsfan said:
And the second thing is a north-south divide, its how the two areas are by and large organized. Yes, there are rural areas in the north but they don't have the weight in the north they do in the south.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The South in general is more red than the North but the reason for the blowout is because of demographics and the fact that there are simply more rural areas in the South IIRC.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
zero shift said:
Republicans Nixon and prior were very different from Republicans of today.
.
Click to expand...

People keep saying this. They were anti-federal immigration and less amenable to "social solutions". Nixon republicans weren't really that liberal by any stretch, look up Robert Taft.

You're transfixed by the fact the people were liberal and rewarded liberal politics more than conservative policy and seem to transplant that on to the party at large. They weren't liberal and socialist, the president doesn't write policy. Dems controlled the house from 1952 till 1994, you want to know why "nixon republicans' were different? they didn't have congress or state houses

The 1964 Economic Opportunity Act – the omnibus bill establishing Job Corps, a federal work-study program, adult education funding, and various other things – was sponsored in the House by staunch anti-labor segregationist Phil Landrum of Georgia, and passed with 60% of Southern Democrats voting in favor, even as 87% of Republicans opposed it. Likewise, Medicare passed in 1965 with 61% of Southern Democrats in favor and 93% of Republicans opposed. The 1964 Food Stamp Act, after an intra-party log-rolling deal involving farm subsidies, went through on virtually a straight party-line vote.
Click to expand...
It’s Hoover’s party — and Madison’s — not Calhoun’s
 
H

HylianTom

Banned
Avon Barksdale said:
If any Southern states want break off, go right ahead.
Click to expand...

Like I said in the main thread.. the North will want river control (and, as a bonus) an island playground/vacation spot, so you'd really want to keep New Orleans in the union.

We voted 80% for Obama.. aside from some cultural inertia from the past, we really don't belong with the hillbillies around us.
 
A

Avon Barksdale

Member
HylianTom said:
Like I said in the main thread.. the North will want river control (and, as a bonus) an island playground/vacation spot, so you'd really want to keep New Orleans in the union.

We voted 80% for Obama.. aside from some cultural inertia from the past, we really don't belong with the hillbillies around us.
Click to expand...

I just saw the thread. I'm surprised that only 30% of Republicans are in favor of secession, figured it would be a lot higher.
 
C

Chichikov

Member
benjipwns said:
The whole thing is dumb, especially for the Senate races compared to Presidential, and even then a lot of the same problems exist. Only a few states actually matter, and trends tell you like 95% of the information.

You don't even really need a sophisticated model, RCP's average is just a straight average of polls, including shitty ones, that get dropped after so many months or if a new poll comes out from the same pollster and it really doesn't do too much worse than these models.

RCP says 47-45 GOP with 8 toss ups, 50-49-1 if forced to pick, so 50-50 if Orman is with Dems.
Wang says 51-49 Dem.
Silver's most likely is 52-48 GOP. But he says there's a 60% chance that Republicans will have between 53 and 49 seats. An 80% chance between 54 and 48.

So we have basically two or three seats that we're talking about where every single model says "it could go either way" and another three or four that are leans but could change.

The most anyone is going to be wrong is like probably two seats. We're talking about an extremely narrow set of possibilities at stake.

It's like wow! Amazing! So you would be a bit less wrong!

If your model says one team is going to win 95 out of a 100 times and they lose, that's not an indictment of your model anymore than it saying 53 times and they lose. And it doesn't mean there's anything to necessarily correct for. Especially if you can't with the available data.

Reminds me of this much funnier kerfluffle in some ways:
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/2/6088485/how-political-science-conquered-washington
http://www.salon.com/2014/09/14/all...ournalism_and_the_phony_washington_consensus/
http://www.vox.com/2014/9/17/6291859/area-pundit-angry-at-political-science-for-proving-him-wrong
Click to expand...
Those percentage numbers don't really mean what people think they mean.
People think of them in terms of rolling a dice, you know, if you I roll a dice 3 times I have 50% chance for it to land on the number 4.
But that doesn't really applicable for elections, you can't re-run election 100 times under the same conditions (and if you could, you'll get the same results).
They all are however use mathematical tools that were designed to measure the probability of a random repeatable event like a dice roll.
It's not a terrible way to express confidence in a result, but what you're expressing really is the degree in which polls have been wrong in the past.
Which by the way, encompass two very different phenomenons - poll bias and actual change in public opinion.
 
Z

zero shift

Banned
APKmetsfan said:
People keep saying this. They were anti-federal immigration and less amenable to "social solutions". Nixon republicans weren't really that liberal by any stretch, look up Robert Taft.

You're transfixed by the fact the people were liberal and rewarded liberal politics more than conservative policy and seem to transplant that on to the party at large. They weren't liberal and socialist, the president doesn't write policy. Dems controlled the house from 1952 till 1994, you want to know why "nixon republicans' were different? they didn't have congress or state houses


It’s Hoover’s party — and Madison’s — not Calhoun’s
Click to expand...

Good point. My point still stands though. The divide is more city vs country than it is regional.
 
V

Vahagn

Member
APKmetsfan said:
People keep saying this. They were anti-federal immigration and less amenable to "social solutions". Nixon republicans weren't really that liberal by any stretch, look up Robert Taft.

You're transfixed by the fact the people were liberal and rewarded liberal politics more than conservative policy and seem to transplant that on to the party at large. They weren't liberal and socialist, the president doesn't write policy. Dems controlled the house from 1952 till 1994, you want to know why "nixon republicans' were different? they didn't have congress or state houses


It’s Hoover’s party — and Madison’s — not Calhoun’s
Click to expand...

Southern conservatives didn't reject social programs until after LBJ. And they did so because Nixon in 1968 found a way to play dog whistle politics and get a bunch of pissed off racist southern whites to look at social spending as handouts for black people.

The south voted for FDR (and so did everyone) but they also voted against Coolidge.

e1924_ecmap.GIF



The South by and large supported Democrats because the Republican Party represented Emancipation to them. And they accepted social welfare programs because they by and large were given to white people.

Nixon used the Civil Rights Acts and Voting Rights Act as well as the perception that the enhanced social welfare programs were going to blacks in inner cities to win in 1968 with the "silent majority"


If you think Conservatives are for fiscal responsibility or for small social spending, you won't understand it. They support medicare and they supported Reagan (who blew up the debt and deficit way worse than Carter). Fiscal conservatism isn't about fiscal responsibility, it's about fiscal priorities.

"Give money to us hard working white folks and don't give it to the poor lazy blacks and mexicans" is the entirety of their agenda. So when Paul Ryan proposes a plan that dramatically increases the national debt by 5 trillion he's hailed as a fiscal conservative because he cuts funding in programs typically associated with helping poor people and minorities. Same with Reagan.

There is Ideological conservatism - small federal govt, state rights, free markets, individual liberty, low taxes, and constitutional literalism

And then there is what conservatives actually support and believe - white superiority, christian superiority, hetersexual superiority, male superiority. They want a government that pushes those values, and what they value as multi culturalism, the gay agenda, the feminist movement, etc - they just see as a leftist agenda designed to destroy what's noble about this country.
.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Vahagn said:
Southern conservatives didn't reject social programs until after LBJ. And they did so because Nixon in 1968 found a way to play dog whistle politics and get a bunch of pissed off racist southern whites to look at social spending as handouts for black people.

The south voted for FDR (and so did everyone) but they also voted against Coolidge.

e1924_ecmap.GIF



The South by and large supported Democrats because the Republican Party represented Emancipation to them. And they accepted social welfare programs because they by and large were given to white people.

Nixon used the Civil Rights Acts and Voting Rights Act as well as the perception that the enhanced social welfare programs were going to blacks in inner cities to win in 1968 with the "silent majority"


If you think Conservatives are for fiscal responsibility or for small social spending, you won't understand it. They support medicare and they supported Reagan (who blew up the debt and deficit way worse than Carter). Fiscal conservatism isn't about fiscal responsibility, it's about fiscal priorities.

"Give money to us hard working white folks and don't give it to the poor lazy blacks and mexicans" is the entirety of their agenda. So when Paul Ryan proposes a plan that dramatically increases the national debt by 5 trillion he's hailed as a fiscal conservative because he cuts funding in programs typically associated with helping poor people and minorities.
Click to expand...
I don't know where I disagree with the majority of this. (though I think your over selling the uniformity of the souths love of welfare and socialism and not giving enough to the fact that they just voted democratic because of the civil war.)

I was saying that nixon wasn't liberal and that republicans back then were conservative. I was responding to Vermont being red and being conservative until the 1980s. I wasn't talking about dems

If you think Conservatives are for fiscal responsibility or for small social spending, you won't understand it. They support medicare and they supported Reagan (who blew up the debt and deficit way worse than Carter). Fiscal conservatism isn't about fiscal responsibility, it's about fiscal priorities.
Click to expand...
This is just wrong though, they don't and never have supported medicare, they tolerate it for electoral reasons while trying to dismantle it every 5 years. The last statement is very accurate though
 
V

Vahagn

Member
APKmetsfan said:
I don't know where I disagree with the majority of this. (though I think your over selling the uniformity of the souths love of welfare and socialism and not giving enough to the fact that they just voted democratic because of the civil war.)

I was saying that nixon wasn't liberal and that republicans back then were conservative. I was responding to Vermont being red and being conservative until the 1980s. I wasn't talking about dems


This is just wrong though, they don't and never have supported medicare, they tolerate it for electoral reasons while trying to dismantle it every 5 years. The last statement is very accurate though
Click to expand...

Conservative Politicians, sure. But Conservatives overwhelmingly support medicare. Some 75% of Tea Party members consistently say they don't want Medicare messed with.

Same with Social Security. Conservative Politicians struggle with their ideological positions which should be against Medicare, but the conservative base overwhelmingly supports it.

I agree that Nixon wasn't Liberal. Eisenhower is some ways was, and Teddy in A LOT of ways was, but Nixon wasn't. He was definitely more liberal than today's conservatives, as was Reagan. The movement has gone further to the right as they've felt more attacked by minorities and the liberal value system.
 
N

NYCmetsfan

Banned
Vahagn said:
Conservative Politicians, sure. But Conservatives overwhelmingly support medicare. Some 75% of Tea Party members consistently say they don't want Medicare messed with.

Same with Social Security. Conservative Politicians struggle with their ideological positions which should be against Medicare, but the conservative base overwhelmingly supports it.
Click to expand...

You're confusing conservative with republican voters. You can't just say they're the same. The republican party and conservative ideology in the US has never consented to the idea of Medicare and even social security. They've actively pushed laws that in essence eliminate their current public structure
 
V

Vahagn

Member
APKmetsfan said:
You're confusing conservative with republican voters.
Click to expand...

I'm not, I highlighted the difference between conservative ideology and conservative voters. All those people label themselves as conservatives, it's just that southern and in a broader respect rural conservatism in all practicality is just a selfish white/christian supremacy movement. Always has been.

Give it 30 years, The conservatives will love Obamacare. They have no problem with handouts, as long as they think it goes to them and makes their lives better. Their problem was they thought it was going to be given to illegal immigrants and crash our health care and our country to the ground. That perception will change, and they'll support it as much as your average liberal would. (They'll even start to take credit, as they always do).

I differentiate between ideologically pure conservatives and the conservative voting block and the ideologically pure ones represent like 5%. The rest are just selfish, racist, homophobic, xenophobic bigots.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom