Support NeoGAF

[Black Mamba]

I am certain Gravis' methodology is wrong because the filter they use to establish likeliness to vote is whether someone has voted in that caucus before. If you haven't voted in a caucus before, you are not considered likely to vote. This flies in the face of ~30% of Iowan caucus-goers in '08 being first timers. The +18 is an outlier. For the record, if you include +18 in that average, you get Clinton +6.4. Now, the chances of an accurate poll getting +18 from a population value of +6.4 with a sample size of say 500 is less than 0.01%. Gravis is immensely unlikely to be an outlier. Either it is wrong, or the others are wrong, and I think we have sufficient reason to suppose Gravis is wrong.

That's fine. I'm not opposed to eliminating polls with improper methodology, I'm against throwing out outliers which are different. Your post didn't differentiate the two at the time so without any other information, I'm not throwing it out.

I am only against people putting a single poll or pollster on a pedastol and ignoring other pollsters. This isn't a Hillary vs Bernie thing at all. Just want people to understand not to overlook the aggregate because they like a pollster and to also realize primary/caucus polling hasn't yet proven to be super reliable.

 

[noshten]

I agree with Bernie slightly more than Hillary on the issues.

But I'm also convinced that, in these political circumstances, with Congressional gridlock very likely to continue well into the next administration, a Bernie presidency wouldn't look dramatically different from a Hillary presidency or a Biden presidency. We're not electing the President into a vacuum; we're putting him/her into a very specific political scenario, with very specific limitations on what policies are politically achievable.

Given this lack of strong difference, I look at probability to win the general election. And this "fake", this "joke" Hillary is still outperforming Bernie in general election matchups. If that should change such that Bernie begins to outperform Hillary in general election polling consistently, I won't hesitate to change preference in a heartbeat. Any of the major Democratic candidates will do fine policy-wise in this specific situation, so probability to win the general takes precedence in my mind - especially given how close elections have been in the post-Reagan era, where a swing of a few points can alter the outcome.

Seems pretty logical to me.

You can point to a few headliner issues where you don't trust Hillary, but those of us who have been observing her for a few decades know that she's been pretty damn consistently liberal. We can argue over likeability (you'll actually find in my history no shortage of comments noting that she's lacking in the charisma department), but the suggestion that she's anything but liberal is laughable, and it flies in the face of her overall record.

So are you starting to warm to President Sanders Hylian ?

I like Clinton as a candidate, but she just packs her campaign with the stupidest people. It really affects poorly on her potential ability as president when she shows that she either can't control staff or don't know they're the sort of people that would do this in the first place. I mean really, the incompetence is baffling.

I like you Crab, keep on Crabbing

 

[NeoXChaos]

That's fine. I'm not opposed to eliminating polls with improper methodology, I'm against throwing out outliers which are different. Your post didn't differentiate the two at the time so without any other information, I'm not throwing it out.

I am only against people putting a single poll or pollster on a pedastol and ignoring other pollsters. This isn't a Hillary vs Bernie thing at all. Just want people to understand not to overlook the aggregate because they like a pollster and to also realize primary/caucus polling hasn't yet proven to be super reliable.

exactly. throw it in the average. Most likely what is going to happen is one or both candidates are either going to be on the mark, under perform or over perform their polling averages.

 

[disastermouse]

Bernie and Trump's platforms/policies couldn't be more different from each other. People are odd and ignorant in a best case scenario where they want to switch to a racist if Bernie fails to get the nomination. If they knowingly do so, no respect.

Let's poll where GAF's respect ranks on things that mean fuck all in American politics. Many American voters are...shall we say 'motivated by factors other than reason'. Thus it has always been. Cursing them for their stupidity has never even once been an effective strategy for counteracting it.

 

[Holmes]

I like Clinton as a candidate, but she just packs her campaign with the stupidest people. It really affects poorly on her potential ability as president when she shows that she either can't control staff or don't know they're the sort of people that would do this in the first place. I mean really, the incompetence is baffling.

igetthatreference.gif

 

[A Human Becoming]

Trump loves the Hispanics. Even thought they're rapists and murders. He loves the blacks too. And the Jews; they're smart, that's why he hires them to manage his money. And he loves women. They all love him too.

I always imagine when asked about a group Trump responding with: "The _____, they love me!"

 

[theprodigy]

I like Clinton as a candidate, but she just packs her campaign with the stupidest people. It really affects poorly on her potential ability as president when she shows that she either can't control staff or don't know they're the sort of people that would do this in the first place. I mean really, the incompetence is baffling.

I see what you did there!

 

[ivysaur12]

I like Clinton as a candidate, but she just packs her campaign with the stupidest people. It really affects poorly on her potential ability as president when she shows that she either can't control staff or don't know they're the sort of people that would do this in the first place. I mean really, the incompetence is baffling.

100/100

 

[CygnusXS]

Either you do not know the definition of the word "racist" or you are ignorant of Trump's positions. Let me help you:

rac·ist
ˈrāsəst/
adjective
noun: racist; plural noun: racists; adjective: racist
1.
having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.


Most accusations of Trump's supposed racism comes from two sources:

1. His proposed temporary ban on Muslims entering the United States.

The problem with this is, Islam is not a race. Not only that, but he's not even talking about all Muslims, only those entering the country. Trump has no problem with the millions of Muslims in America today: I love the Muslims. I think they're great people.

2. His stance on illegal immigration.

Again, Trump makes no claim that any race is superior or inferior to the Latino race. He doesn't even mention race. He talks about people coming in from Mexico (which is a country, not a race), illegally, and many are criminals or whatnot. Now, you can argue about the definition of "many", but consider that millions come here illegally, even if 99% of them do not commit crimes, that's still thousands of illegal immigrants who are criminals. I would certainly consider that to be "many". But that issue aside, we are talking about illegal immigration, by people from a certain country. It's not about race. Notice how Trump has no problems with Latinos in America legally, or Latinos immigrating legally from South America, etc. Trump: I have thousands of Hispanics working for me. I love the people.

You can say Trump is using negative rhetoric. You can say Trump is harsh on immigration and enforcing the laws. You can say Trump's policies target certain groups of people. (which all politicians are guilty of; see Bernie targeting the wealthy) But to say Trump is a racist is completely unfounded and outright slander. It's a sad commentary on America today that we take offense at the slightest things and label it racism. This is why we need real change in Washington and why we cannot afford another 4 years of politics as usual.

How do you walk around with those blinders on?

 

[Indicate]

I'm going to make the thread for the Iowa Brown & Black Forum since I don't think anyone has claimed it. It'll be up in a few minutes.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

Honestly, it looks more like he was trying to build a network than anything else. Once that's done, he makes a run at governor, does that for a bit then tries for real with more executive experience and an army of donors at his back. It wouldn't be the first time someone used a run to build up another run in the future.

But what evidence exists to support this theory? Planning to make a failed run at Presidency so you can win a governorship so you can actually become President later is nutty. Especially for someone who jumped straight from the state senate to the actual Senate, and in doing so pushed out a popular seated governor.

I think its far more reasonable to believe that Rubio's campaign really does see him as the Republican Obama and thought he could win over the Establishment and then outlast the outsiders. Look at how well the Rubio campaign was prepped when Cruz went after him on immigration. Thats not how someone responds when they're running half-assed.

 

[Black Mamba]

But what evidence exists to support this theory? Planning to make a failed run at Presidency so you can win a governorship so you can actually become President later is nutty. Especially for someone who jumped straight from the state senate to the actual Senate, and in doing so pushed out a popular seated governor.

I think its far more reasonable to believe that Rubio's campaign really does see him as the Republican Obama and thought he could win over the Establishment and then outlast the outsiders. Look at how well the Rubio campaign was prepped when Cruz went after him on immigration. Thats not how someone responds when they're running half-assed.

No, I think what he (and myself) mean is that Rubio got into the race originally thinking about raising his profile and found himself with a legit shot at winning. I think he's trying to win right now but he didn't think he'd be here so he's far behind in his infrastructure. he's not trying to lose.

 

[Cybit]

Nikki Haley giving the GOP response? Oh fuck that.

Can't we get some Indian-American politicians that aren't insane? I think her and Jindal are the two with the biggest national profile. :-/

 

[Abinash117]

Well then Vendetta, yes, Bernie's healthcare plan would hand the power to implement it over to Republican governors. Straight from the first paragraph:

So much for that.

That seems kinda stupid and doesn't seem to address the problem, but potentially make it worse as there isn't any coherent healthcare. Didn't Maine try a single payer?

 

[vicissitudes]

I just can't resist calling out the classic "You can't be racist against Muslims since they aren't a race" line. Not only is this meaningless exclusively semantic garbage and an attempt at conflating vernacular and precise definitions of racism to confuse people (my favorite motte-and-bailey fallacy), but it seems to me as though you think that playing categorization games to miscategorize something somehow intrinsically changes that which was miscategorized as opposed to you having just slapping a misleading label on it (basically, using semantics to say something "technically isn't racist" doesn't actually make it less bigoted). The very essence of attempting to appear smart but failing to have any substance at all.

But since we're being pedantic, how about we say "Trump's plan to ban Muslims from immigrating to the US is discriminatory and bigoted". And since Shibboleth don't actually work and this ban will end up just being a ban on people who are "suspected" Muslims (i.e. brown) we can also say "Trump's plan to ban Muslims is racist against Arabic people who will be suspected of being Muslim". Check and mate.

Also, it's not a defense to say "well it could be worse, he could ban all current Muslims (brown people) instead of just future Muslim (brown people) immigrants" - you are right in that it would be even shittier, but the possibility that his proposals could be even more shitty does not somehow diminish the current shittiness.

At least own up to reality, don't try and say "well technically this doesn't fit the definition of racism because of word games, so therefore it's okay" because that doesn't change reality and isn't fooling anyone.

I agree that Trump's temporary Muslim ban is discriminatory. But then we need to define discriminatory:

"Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit."

In that sense, many policies proposed on both sides are discriminatory. For example, Bernie's tax plan is discriminatory against the wealthy in favor of the poor. Hillary's college loans proposal is discriminatory in favor of the young and college educated and against the old and uneducated.

Now, you may argue that these are acceptable forms of discrimination, and religious discrimination is not acceptable. That's certainly a valid opinion, and if Trump had proposed permanent ban I would be opposed to that. However, what Trump really wants to do is reform the current immigration policies in order to better identify/target potential terrorists and strengthen national security, so that we can go back to immigration policies that do not discriminate based on religion. This is what both the left and right want: 1. strengthen national security and 2. (eventually) have immigration policies that do not discriminate based on religion.

What we should not do is accuse Trump of racial discrimination when he has not proposed anything of the sort. That is dishonest. When Trump says "many people come from Mexico illegally, and many are criminals, and some are good people" and the media reports it as "Trump thinks all Mexicans are criminals and rapists" that is dishonest, and it is shoddy journalism which disregards the truth in favor of ratings. This only strengthens the argument that the media cannot be trusted and Trump is a more honest politician than his attackers.

 

[benjipwns]

RCP has always leaned right. Didn't they predict Bush would win in a landslide in 2000?

Yes they thought he'd win like 400 EVs lol

And mocked the media for speculating that Gore could win the electoral college while losing the popular vote, and that would be the only way he could win while using some underhanded tactics.

Hm, funny how that worked out.

In 2000, RCP was one and a half dudes though.

Now it's like 30-35. And uses a set model.

It'd probably be more accurate to talk about how John McIntyre thought it'd be a Bush landslide, if everything broke for Bush.

Regarding the current presidential campaign, John McIntyre recently observed, “There seems to be a consistent tendency for the national media to overstate Gore’s real level of support.” He is spot on the money. It isn’t just what facts the mainstream chooses to report, but how they present, color and frame those statistics. “If Gore’s up 5 in the polls, the press reports that the election is over and the Democrats have won. If the race is truly tied in the polls, the press acts as if Gore is up 5 points and Bush has big problems. When Bush is up 5 points, however, the press tells us that the race is a dead heat.”

The examples of the mainstream prejudice are not anecdotal or sporadic; it is ubiquitous — like pigeon droppings in Trafalgar Square. Former Congressman Hal Boggs’ little girl, Cokie Roberts of ABC told her audience, “I mean, look at this. We have, today, yet another spate of polls showing this essentially a dead even race.” Judy Woodruff of The Clinton News Network introduced a segment by saying, “With the Presidential race still deadlocked.”

McIntyre observes, an average of all the major polls shows Bush is up 3-5 points.

• The RCP Tracking Composite for Oct. 16 had the race 44.5 to 40.2 percent and the RCP National Poll Composite has the race 46.4 to 42.2, giving Bush leads of 4.3 percent and 4.2 percent, respectively.
  
• Roughly speaking, Bush and Gore are currently pulling 85 percent of the vote; 6 percent goes to third party candidates and 9 percent are voters currently undecided.
  
• History shows that undecideds generally break 4/5 for the challenger; so, barring a Gore surge at the very end, allocating 2/3 of the undecideds to Bush is reasonable.
  
• If Bush received 6 more points and Gore 3 more points, the final result would be a 7.3 percent win for the governor (Bush 50.5, Gore 43.2).
  
• Ed Goeas of the Battleground Poll reported recently on Fox News that his organization’s most accurate survey of the people who are “going to vote” has the race 50 to 45 in favor of Bush.
  
• In 1980, Reagan’s 9.7 percent popular vote win translated to an Electoral College landslide of 489 to 49.
  
• In 1988, Bush won by 7.7 percent and had an electoral count of 426 to 111.
  
• By this logic, if George W. Bush holds onto a 7 percent win in the popular vote, a 356 to 182 electoral vote tally in his favor is actually somewhat conservative.

 

[benjipwns]

Also, did anybody call the cops? How many times has this joke been made?

 

[Iolo]

vicissitudes you completely ignored the word "bigoted", assuredly because you have no defense

 

[PBY]

I agree that Trump's temporary Muslim ban is discriminatory. But then we need to define discriminatory:

"Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit."

In that sense, many policies proposed on both sides are discriminatory. For example, Bernie's tax plan is discriminatory against the wealthy in favor of the poor. Hillary's college loans proposal is discriminatory in favor of the young and college educated and against the old and uneducated.

Now, you may argue that these are acceptable forms of discrimination, and religious discrimination is not acceptable. That's certainly a valid opinion, and if Trump had proposed permanent ban I would be opposed to that. However, what Trump really wants to do is reform the current immigration policies in order to better identify/target potential terrorists and strengthen national security, so that we can go back to immigration policies that do not discriminate based on religion. This is what both the left and right want: 1. strengthen national security and 2. (eventually) have immigration policies that do not discriminate based on religion.

What we should not do is accuse Trump of racial discrimination when he has not proposed anything of the sort. That is dishonest. When Trump says "many people come from Mexico illegally, and many are criminals, and some are good people" and the media reports it as "Trump thinks all Mexicans are criminals and rapists" that is dishonest, and it is shoddy journalism which disregards the truth in favor of ratings. This only strengthens the argument that the media cannot be trusted and Trump is a more honest politician than his attackers.

Got to the bolded, then bailed.

 

[B-Dubs]

No, I think what he (and myself) mean is that Rubio got into the race originally thinking about raising his profile and found himself with a legit shot at winning. I think he's trying to win right now but he didn't think he'd be here so he's far behind in his infrastructure. he's not trying to lose.

Exactly.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I agree that Trump's temporary Muslim ban is discriminatory. But then we need to define discriminatory:

"Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing is perceived to belong to rather than on individual merit."

In that sense, many policies proposed on both sides are discriminatory. For example, Bernie's tax plan is discriminatory against the wealthy in favor of the poor. Hillary's college loans proposal is discriminatory in favor of the young and college educated and against the old and uneducated.

Now, you may argue that these are acceptable forms of discrimination, and religious discrimination is not acceptable. That's certainly a valid opinion, and if Trump had proposed permanent ban I would be opposed to that. However, what Trump really wants to do is reform the current immigration policies in order to better identify/target potential terrorists and strengthen national security, so that we can go back to immigration policies that do not discriminate based on religion. This is what both the left and right want: 1. strengthen national security and 2. (eventually) have immigration policies that do not discriminate based on religion.

What we should not do is accuse Trump of racial discrimination when he has not proposed anything of the sort. That is dishonest. When Trump says "many people come from Mexico illegally, and many are criminals, and some are good people" and the media reports it as "Trump thinks all Mexicans are criminals and rapists" that is dishonest, and it is shoddy journalism which disregards the truth in favor of ratings. This only strengthens the argument that the media cannot be trusted and Trump is a more honest politician than his attackers.

What about when he retweeted that bullshit image with black deaths and cops statistics? What's your academic write up for that?

 

[PBY]

What about when he retweeted that bullshit image with black deaths and cops statistics? What's your academic write up for that?

Well, that's a good point, but lets agree on a definition of retweet first.

 

[User 406]

 

[HylianTom]

So are you starting to warm to President Sanders Hylian ?

I'd happily support him if he's the nominee.

I still think his negatives would more than catch-up.. especially if he were to continue doing a piss-poor job of handling The Socialism Question whenever it's brought-up.

But you don't need to convince me. I'm still a Trump voter in the primaries. 😋

(And benji is back? Sweet!)

 

[Cybit]

Got to the bolded, then bailed.

I'll give Trump credit for one thing. He'll go like 95% of the way to being full blown bigoted; wait for modern clickbait-y "journalism" (ie, what happens when you have full blown shareholder capitalism running amok in journalism) to say he went 100% of the way, then blast the media for being "dishonest" on a technicality and get even more credibility from a group of voters (conservatives) who already distrust the media.

Dude's messed up as heck but he knows how to make the media his bitch, no questions asked.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I'd happily support him if he's the nominee.

I still think his negatives would more than catch-up.. especially if he were to continue doing a piss-poor job of handling The Socialism Question whenever it's brought-up.

But you don't need to convince me. I'm still a Trump voter in the primaries. ��

(And benji is back? Sweet!)

My concern is the 6 month onslaught he's going to get over being weak on terrorism, taxes, spending, and expanding government. He also makes it a point to downplay the progress of the last 8 years which is going to make people wonder why the hell they should give a Democratic candidate another 4. He also seems very uncomfortable discussing anything but economics but there are entire GE debates about other topics. Can he really debate Trump or Cruz for 2 hours on nothing but foreign policy?

 

[Makai]

 

[benjipwns]

Rand Paul and Carly Fiorina have been booted off the main stage at Thursday's Republican primary debate, Fox Business Network announced Monday evening.

The seven candidates who will appear on the main stage in North Charleston, S.C., are Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, and John Kasich.

The candidates invited to the earlier, undercard debate are Paul, Fiorina, Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum. Paul told CNN Monday evening his exclusion from the main stage was "a mistake," and he won't attend the undercard debate. "We will not participate in anything that's not first-tier," Paul said.

pls print

 

[pigeon]

Bush's slow trip to the outskirts is complete.

Also, wow, why is there still an undercard? Can't we retire those candidates yet?

 

[Indicate]

I'm going to make the thread for the Iowa Brown & Black Forum since I don't think anyone has claimed it. It'll be up in a few minutes.

Now up!

 

[And_Gignac]

I like Clinton as a candidate, but she just packs her campaign with the stupidest people. It really affects poorly on her potential ability as president when she shows that she either can't control staff or don't know they're the sort of people that would do this in the first place. I mean really, the incompetence is baffling.

Drag Cerium!

 

[B-Dubs]

About time Rand got the boot. He's survived for way too long up top.

 

[And_Gignac]

The rise and demise of Fiorina is amazing.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

Why does Fuckabee bother? He does this every cycle.

 

[User1608]

Lmao Jeb.

 

[Makai]

Rand's reaction

https://randpaul.com/news/rand-paul-for-president-issues-statement-on-fox-business-debate2

 

[Mrs. Manky]

Trump's in the middle of a Cuban sandwich.









(i'm sorry i'll just go over here to the corner and sit)

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Why does Fuckabee bother? He does this every cycle.

Hmm? He didn't do badly at all in 2008 and didn't run in 2012.

 

[Maledict]

Why does Fuckabee bother? He does this every cycle.

He's only run once before, in 2008. He caused a big splash by winning Iowa unexpectedly, and actually went in to pick up more delegates than Romney in the race (so technically was the runner up, not Romney). In 2012 he didn't run because he was making too much money.

So not sure what you mean by him doing this every cycle?

(like Santorum, he's struggled a lot more than he expected in Iowa because he didn't realise how utterly sick people were of the past. This is not an electorate willing to give someone a second chance, and both he and Santorum have suffered from that).

 

[Basileus777]

Wow they've finally narrowed it down to only candidates with relevancy to this race.

 

[ErasureAcer]

Wow they've finally narrowed it down to only candidates with relevancy to this race.

Why is Carson still on the stage?

 

[Mike M]

The number of people on stage for each debate should be switched, if anything. Or split as close to straight down the middle as possible.

 

[Basileus777]

The number of people on stage for each debate should be switched, if anything. Or split as close to straight down the middle as possible.

I'm sure Rubio would love that.

 

[danm999]

Still too many in topcard debate. It'll continue to be a shouting match.

 

[benjipwns]

If you based it on polling, it's hard to say Paul doesn't deserve to be in compared with Kasich.

National, Iowa, NH, SC
Christie: 4.3%, 4.3%, 9.5%, 3.5%
Jeb: 3.8%, 4.3%, 8.7%, 8.5%
Kasich: 1.8%, 2.0%, 11.2%, 1.5%
Paul: 2.8%, 4.0%, 4.0%, 3.5%
Carly: 1.8%, 1.5%, 3.8%, 3.0%
Huckabee: 1.3%, 2.3%, 0.7%, 1.5%
Santorum: 0.3%, 1.0%, 0.8%, 0.5%

Average with double weight on national:
Trump: 31.60
Carson: 8.16
Christie: 5.18
Jeb: 5.82
Kasich: 3.66
Paul: 3.42
Carly: 2.38
Huckabee: 1.42
Santorum: 0.58

But their criteria wasn't about polling this time, just placement:

Fox Business Network announced that in order to qualify for the primetime debate, candidates must either: place in the top six nationally, based on an average of the five most recent national polls recognized by FOX News; place in the top five in Iowa, based on an average of the five most recent Iowa state polls recognized by FOX News; or place in the top five in New Hampshire, based on an average of the five most recent New Hampshire state polls recognized by FOX News

At least with Paul out of the way they can have a serious discussion on foreign policy. Hopefully they maintain this for the next debate.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I'm sorry but the amount that Rand Paul cries about not making the main debate is hilarious. His God (Ayn Rand) would spit on him.

 

[PBY]

At least with Paul out of the way they can have a serious discussion on foreign policy. Hopefully they maintain this for the next debate.

Not likely.

 

[Foffy]

Santorum is still in this? Hahahaha.

 

[Holmes]

New Gravis poll conducted January 10th:

Dem:

Clinton 65%
Sanders 26%
O'Malley 9%

GOP:

Trump 41%
Cruz 20%
Rubio 11%
Bush 6%
Carson 5%
Fiorina 4%
Kasich 4%
Christie 3%
Paul 2%
Huckabee 2%
Santorum 0%

http://www.oann.com/pollnational/

 

[Plinko]

About time Rand got the boot. He's survived for way too long up top.

Now Kasich is going to be the only decent-sounding guy up there. It's sad, because guys like Rand made the crazy on stage seem even more crazy in comparison.