TacticalFox88
Banned
HOW ARE THESE TWO EVENTS RELATED!!!!!????
-
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
- Thread starter bananas
- Start date
- Status
HOW ARE THESE TWO EVENTS RELATED!!!!!????
Sorry, I didn't see this until now. Jon Chait has a pretty good summary, but if you want something more detailed I'll get back to you:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/have-republicans-finally-gone-too-far-in-kansas.html
I'm against the idea of criticizing liberals because that takes away attention from conservatives doing dumb shit as well as providing them with more ammo against liberals. Do you want people like Bill O'Reilly using you as a cudgel to attack democrats?
"Even far left, ultraliberal neogaf poster, APKmetsfan, thinks Rachel Maddow has gone too far!"
Goddamn it, Heracles.
He's gonna start driving me towards Norse mythology if he keeps this shit up.
Speaking of Jon Chait, he's got yet another wonderful article shredding the GOP boy genius:
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/paul-ryan-declares-war-against-math.html
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/09/paul-ryan-declares-war-against-math.html
NYCmetsfan
Banned
1) this is neogaf, i'm not a talking head or being published
2) I really think not holding any kind of standard to "our side" is pretty shameful and against what liberalism is supposed to be about. Its the old ends justify the means but if you don't criticize them I don't know how you even are going to get to the means. You seem to be creating a bubble in which conservatives are always wrong and liberals are always right even when they're not. That's not a recipe for liberal/progressive change and won't win over people
3) conservatives do more dumb stuff, I'm not taking anything away from that.
Joe Molotov
Member
http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...ar-president-111235.html?hp=t1_3#.VCHOW5RdXh5
All Obama needs is a good war to boost his poll numbers and Win the Morning.
All Obama needs is a good war to boost his poll numbers and Win the Morning.
Aaron Strife
Banned
PPP released Arkansas and Alaska polls and they're not good. Pryor's losing by 5, Begich by 2. The Alaska one is still close enough that I think Begich can win, but ugh, starting to think Arkansas is lost.
Amazing to think before 2010, 3 out of 4 of their representatives and both senators were Democrats. Pryor didn't even have a Republican opponent in 2008. All it took was one black president for the South to completely lose its shit.
The good thing is losing the South was a long time coming anyway. Might as well get it over with in an election where it doesn't really matter.
Amazing to think before 2010, 3 out of 4 of their representatives and both senators were Democrats. Pryor didn't even have a Republican opponent in 2008. All it took was one black president for the South to completely lose its shit.
The good thing is losing the South was a long time coming anyway. Might as well get it over with in an election where it doesn't really matter.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Good news in Iowa at least. Absentee ballot requests have nearly doubled since 2010, and registered Democrats make up 52% of those requests compared to 27% of Republicans. This was a crucial part of Obama's strategy in 2012 and I've heard the state party in Iowa has been going in hard pushing people to vote absentee to avoid another 2010 scenario.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
Its been a huge push in FL as well, midterms aren't really about pushing policy or changing minds, its getting people to the polls.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Someone like Webb would have been a great candidate in 2004 or 2008. Maybe not as much now although I still think he could be a decent VP pick (Warner would trump him realistically).
I'd say that's true for certain presidential elections as well - 2004 and 2012 in particular. I believe Romney and Kerry actually won independents by slight margins, but it didn't matter since turnout was so high for Democrats in 2012 and Republicans in 2004.APKmetsfan said:
Sam Wang feels the Senate will come down to Iowa, Colorado, Arkansas and Louisiana, with KS going to Dems/Orman and GOP picking up WV/SD/MT. If Democrats just win two (and convince Orman to caucus with them), they win. I feel okay about those odds.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Interesting. He's too abrasive and wrote a paper about women not being able to fight on the front lines...which will just drive support to Hillary.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
That trains passed
Aaron Strife
Banned
I might be more inclined to agree on Arkansas, but Louisiana is a big question mark until the runoff. The results on election night will absolutely influence what happens there.
PhoenixDark
Banned
No, it's not. Barring some shift it's pretty clear the GOP has the senate, based on recent polls. WV/SD/MT plus Arkansas, Louisiana, and Iowa. And I still think NC goes red but polling isn't in my favor there, yet.
I think we're past the point where Pryor can win in Arkansas. It will come down to Iowa/Alaska/Colorado, and I feel good about 2 of the 3.
So, your assessment is based off recent polls except when it's not based on recent polls?
So, your assessment is based off recent polls except when it's not based on recent polls?
Black Mamba
Member
FWIW, historically the polls in Sept are very predictive of the Senate election.
If the polls don't flip by the end of the month, chances are they won't on election night, either.
That's not to say a 1-2 point lead is safe, that relates to more significant leads.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Um all of Louisiana's polling is close. Unless you're talking about the Fox News poll which was bullshit because it screened out anyone who didn't vote in the 2011 gubernatorial election which had less than 20% turnout.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I'm still sticking with my 53-47 prediction though right now I expect to be off by one seat (AR).
CO and IA are not going red.
CO and IA are not going red.
Black Mamba
Member
Alaska is pretty impossible to predict. Polling has shown some violent swings. It's also a small state which pollsters struggle to find large samples so it has a large MoE.
We probably won't really know what happens in Alaska until the election itself whereas other states should probably be known in about 3 weeks for certain.
We probably won't really know what happens in Alaska until the election itself whereas other states should probably be known in about 3 weeks for certain.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
I'm really curious about the Non-white vote there. They seem to be something the pollsters can never predict.
#thisisme #KrystalBall
This is isn't hard to believe but I'm not sure about KS and IA. Still that split means barring some really really weird stuff the senate reverts back in 2016
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
You're not worried by the PPP poll with Begich down by 3? I thought you liked PPP and there's not really any other recent Alaska polls that say anything different, unless you count a labor union and a democrat super pac as trusted polling sources.
I'm really confident in KS. Less so about IA, but we'll see how the next few weeks of polling go.
I think:
CO: Udall (D hold)
NH: Shaheen (D hold)
AK: Begich (D hold)
AR: Cotton (R pickup)
KS: Orman (I pickup, caucus with D)
IA: Braley (D hold)
GA: Purdue (R hold)
NC: Hagan (D bad news)
LA: Cassidy (R pickup)
KY: McConnell (R hold)
MT, SD, WV R (R pickup)
All others hold
= 49 Republicans, 48 Democrats, 3 Independents (Orman, King, Sanders).
Dems keep control.
Alaska is famously difficult to poll. There have been very few polls there and that PPP polls shows 12% of likely voters undecided. I think you could probably argue that Sullivan is the favorite, but I think Alaska will break for the incumbent.
CO: Udall (D hold)
NH: Shaheen (D hold)
AK: Begich (D hold)
AR: Cotton (R pickup)
KS: Orman (I pickup, caucus with D)
IA: Braley (D hold)
GA: Purdue (R hold)
NC: Hagan (D bad news)
LA: Cassidy (R pickup)
KY: McConnell (R hold)
MT, SD, WV R (R pickup)
All others hold
= 49 Republicans, 48 Democrats, 3 Independents (Orman, King, Sanders).
Dems keep control.
Alaska is famously difficult to poll. There have been very few polls there and that PPP polls shows 12% of likely voters undecided. I think you could probably argue that Sullivan is the favorite, but I think Alaska will break for the incumbent.
Black Mamba
Member
just 6 weeks earlier, it was basically flipped.
MoE of nearly 4 with a 3 point lead. No one above 45%. Only other polls are also by Yougov (not accurate IIRC) and Ras.
Alaska has parts of the state that are hard to poll.
All I'm saying is Alaska is a hard place to poll and with a low population, things that shift very quickly.
I also think people need to recall that the Presidential election and Senate are very different in terms of reliability of polling. The Presidential election basically has a new poll every day out for a long time. It's a shit ton of data points. There's also numerous battleground state polls.
Senate polls are far and few between, in comparison. Especially in smaller states.
This is a large reason why Silver and others are trying to throw "fundamentals" into the models. To make up for this lesser amount of data points.
I think it's safe to say we just don't know what will happen in Iowa or Alaska yet. We have a feeling in Kansas, Colorado, Louisiana, ND, and others but are unconvinced and are certain of others.
FWIW, if I had to bet today on how the election will go if it were held tomorrow, I'd agree 100% with pigeon (51-49 and those state breakdowns).
But things can change. Could even improve for Dems. Could get much worse.
Damn Kevin Sorbo must be desperate for that cottage industry money.
Is this even a real argument. I can't tell anymore. This sounds like the bizzaro version of Reagan's 11th commandment (Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican)
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Funny, isn't adjusting for Alaska's polling history and saying you think things will improve over time both examples of the fundamentals you seem to dislike so much?
Also being within the margin of error does not mean there's no confidence in who's leading, just that the confidence doesn't quite reach 95%.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I'm concerned, but as pigeon said there are all sorts of caveats that come with Alaska polling. The undecided makeup is actually pretty good for Begich, more moderate and Native American (groups already going for him).
I find the Arkansas poll more troubling and I'm beginning to think Pryor will lose, although I don't know if it's a completely lost cause yet. Lean R sounds right.
I think Mamba is actually specifically saying that fundamentals are a reasonable response to a lack of data, which isn't really present in a Presidential race but is a problem in Senate races, especially in states like Alaska.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Hm. PPP ran a hypothetical and pit Gov. Beebe against Sen. Boozman in 2016. Beebe wins by 10.
Dare I dream?
Dare I dream?
NYCmetsfan
Banned
He'd be running with clinton but its really silly this far out. I'd much rather see the positive vs negative views.
Black Mamba
Member
1. I never said I didn't like the fundamentals. I said some are putting in fundamentals and others are going strictly by polling and we'll see if maybe one appears to be right or now. I'm not against the fundamentals in models, I just don't know if they'll be proven right (my own inclination is that they aren't accurate but I like the idea of testing the hypothesis).
2. I never argued things will improve over time. I said they could improve or they could get worse (which isn't really me saying anything at all).
3. They're not examples of the fundamentals. At least the one the models are basing things on.
4. I didn't mention anyone being within the MoE. I said the polls coming out of Alaska have a high MoE. Big difference.
My only question regarding the fundamentals is if the forecasters grabbed the right fundamentals. I do believe if you have the correct assumptions, it's proper to include that into your model. The issue is whether these guys have and my inclination is to think they've missed some. But who knows? No one, right now.
Fixed.
Nice.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I apologize. There's been a lot of complaining about fundamentals in this topic in the past and I guess I thought you were part of it. My bad.
Manmademan
Member
My opinion it is this:
LA is guaranteed to be a runoff. If Dems come out on top after the election with 50 seats (counting independents and not counting biden) then there's no point to Republicans dumping a ton of money into the LA senate race after that, since it won't get them a majority. Dems definitely will, since every seat they can get helps tremendously when trying to build up a supermajority in the senate in 2016. Republicans will be massively outspent in that runoff and Landrieu will hold on to it.
I'm on board with this, minus what I said above. Alaska OR Iowa could go R in this case as well and it wouldn't even matter. Dems hold on to the senate majority, GOP abandons LA as pointless in the runoff.
And TanSuitGate.
Black Mamba
Member
Doom! The ACA is doomed!!!!!!!!!!
It's not all roses, however.
Bah!
More info here: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102025396#.
Lucky Forward
Member
This is why you shouldn't instantly react to every little thing you see or hear by posting a tweet:
Aaron Strife
Banned
He said our pilots had courage not courtesy and that is true, but he is still a mean poopyhead and we shouldn't support anything he does
You know guys, winning Nevada and Arizona in 2012 would have been really cool. There'd be no worry about losing the Senate this year. Nevada was won by 11,000 votes for christ's sake
You know guys, winning Nevada and Arizona in 2012 would have been really cool. There'd be no worry about losing the Senate this year. Nevada was won by 11,000 votes for christ's sake
speculawyer
Member
Well . . . we know that the ambassador passed out some bread to the protesters.
But what do you mean 'involved'. There was no military involvement. The leader wasn't assassinated . . . so what exactly did the USA allegedly do? Give encouragement?
WayneMorse
Banned
Man if control of the Senate comes down to the runoff in Louisiana it's gonna be Bleeding Kansas Pt. 2 in that state.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Aaron Strife will post everyday about the consequences of either outcome and change his mind constantly
speculawyer
Member
The dude quit the Senate. (Well, decided not to run again.) No . . . you had your chance.
Manmademan
Member
no one realistically thinks they have a shot at taking hillary out, nor would they really want to.
Running puts you in the public eye and in good position for VP with a strong showing, but that's about it.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked