Support NeoGAF

[And_Gignac]

PPP is an establishment democratic polling house, no surprises there.

But WTF at O´Malley. He needs to fucking drop out ASAP or will serve as a spoiler for Sanders.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I find the poll-plus contradicts their consistent attitude that national polling doesn't mean much. Polling can be confusing.

They think the national polling actually has negative indicator on state polling. Essentially, only ~15% of all the media that will be consumed regarding the primaries has been consumed so far; however in Iowa and NH voters have consumed far more media than the national average. Therefore, if a candidate does better in Iowa and NH than the national average, they'll do better in national polling as time go by. However, this also applies in Iowa and NH themselves. I know Nate once wrote that a month out, a candidate's performance in Iowa is pretty well predicted by their Iowa state polls plus 0.6 times the difference between their Iowa polls and the national polls.

The reason Clinton crushes it in their "polls plus" prediction compared to the "polls only prediction" (where they think she only has a 55% chance to win) is because Nate thinks endorsements will have a significant impact on the race even if pollsters aren't picking it up, and Clinton is absolutely crushing Sanders in endorsements. I'm not sure I agree with this proposition - I might have in past cycles, but this season is anti-establishment season. Still, we'll see.

 

[Makai]

Oh fucking hell >.<

EDIT: well, so much for all that work

EDIT2: I've got little explainers for each of Obama's guests if you want them.

Post what you had in the thread

 

[B-Dubs]

Post what you had in the thread

It'd take up way too much room.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

PPP is an establishment democratic polling house, no surprises there.

But WTF at O´Malley. He needs to fucking drop out ASAP or will serve as a spoiler for Sanders.

He is below the 15% threshold and will be re-assigned. He's not a spoiler. He'd only be a spoiler if he managed to get 15% of the vote in some districts, which I think is... unlikely.

 

[Makai]

It'd take up way too much room.

It's still on the first page, so I think it's fine. People would enjoy/be informed

 

[NeoXChaos]

It'd take up way too much room.

aaron cant request to lock his thread?

 

[B-Dubs]

Nah, it's fine. I'll post the imgur file here and if he wants anything he can use it. I was going a bit more serious this time is all.

https://imgur.com/a/I1MsH

I figured everyone always asks who those people are so I made graphics explaining why they're there.

 

[User 406]

The way you establish the credibility of the threat is by sometimes following through. And it's very unlikely there's ever going to be a "good" opportunity to do so (one where it would be felt but not hurt your cause at all). Because being felt and not hurting your cause are largely mutually exclusive (unless you have some magical sense that allows you to know an upcoming victory margin so you can punish a candidate so much that they only win by an epsilon margin).

But it isn't felt. Not voting for a candidate in the general conveys no information of use to that candidate. In fact, since what little they do have to go on is that the opposing candidate got more votes, at most they'll actually be more likely to try to peel off votes from the opposition next time, which ends up pushing them in the wrong direction!

Candidates do respond to activism before the election. It's why candidates end up shifting their policies during the course of the campaign. But the voting is after all that, and no matter what the result is, the next time they campaign they're going to be shifting based upon the next round of activism, not upon an informational void of what is normally interpreted as voter apathy. Protest votes aren't felt.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

But it isn't felt. Not voting for a candidate in the general conveys no information of use to that candidate. In fact, since what little they do have to go on is that the opposing candidate got more votes, at most they'll actually be more likely to try to peel off votes from the opposition next time, which ends up pushing them in the wrong direction!

Candidates do respond to activism before the election. It's why candidates end up shifting their policies during the course of the campaign. But the voting is after all that, and no matter what the result is, the next time they campaign they're going to be shifting based upon the next round of activism, not upon an informational void of what is normally interpreted as voter apathy. Protest votes aren't felt.

I think the exception to this is multiparty systems. If a voter stops voting for you in a two-party system, you don't know whether it was apathy or conscious decision. In multiparty decision, apathetic voters switch to don't know, but conscious decision tends to switch to a more leftist/rightist party. That's one of the reason they make for more healthy democracies - they give politicians more information about voter preferences/allow voters to express preferences more easily.

But yes, in America this is largely true and is reason no. 82,561 why the American constitution sucks.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I think the exception to this is multiparty systems. If a voter stops voting for you in a two-party system, you don't know whether it was apathy or conscious decision. In multiparty decision, apathetic voters switch to don't know, but conscious decision tends to switch to a more leftist/rightist party. That's one of the reason they make for more healthy democracies - they give politicians more information about voter preferences/allow voters to express preferences more easily.

But yes, in America this is largely true and is reason no. 82,561 why the American constitution sucks.

I would not call multiparty democracys more healthy. Look at Italy, Spain, Greece, etc.

Politics always divides on a left right continue. Conservative vs. anti-conservative (this can take many forms, socialism, nationalism, racial politics, etc.)

Multiparty democracies govern in the same in-out party. And the US has a multiparty democracy it just happens in the primaries.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I would not call multiparty democracys more healthy. Look at Italy, Spain, Greece, etc.

Politics always divides on a left right continue. Conservative vs. anti-conservative (this can take many forms, socialism, nationalism, racial politics, etc.)

Multiparty democracies govern in the same in-out party. And the US has a multiparty democracy it just happens in the primaries.

Greece's problems are largely exogenously imposed, you could have literally any party system there and you'd still have problems. Spain literally just had it's first ever true multi-party election, so probably not a good example - it's much too early to tell. Italy has many, many other problems and isn't "multi-party" so much as "no party"; it's driven more by individual popular appeal than party labels; it's a populist democracy not a multiparty democracy (France is similar but not as bad).

Happening in the primaries is not good enough because it just leads to tactical voting - i.e., not voting Sanders because you don't think he can win (or vice versa). In a functioning multiparty system which allows for coalitions, there is no significant tactical voting.

 

[Black Republican]

She realized she was burning her bridges before her career even started.

She'll be a future force in the Senate:

fake, right?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

PPP is an establishment democratic polling house, no surprises there.

PPP is still considered fairly reliable and stable.

 

[Aaron Strife]

PPP is still considered fairly reliable and stable.

But per Crab and the two Nates, this is obviously evidence that they're fixing their numbers. Clearly the pollsters that show wild swings between each poll are the most trustworthy.

Btw PPP's result between Clinton and Sanders is still closer than their last so I don't get what all the spin is for. Best case scenario Sanders is leading, worst case he's gaining. Either is good news for Team Bernie.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Honestly, I think the critical thing now is the final debate before Iowa, and maaaybe who the Des Moines Register decides to endorse. Barring any wild shocks like Warren endorsing someone or a terrorist attack on US soil, the winner will be the person who does the best in the final debate. That's the reason I still think Clinton is more likely; she will steady the ship, go on to win by a reasonable margin (~5%), probably still lose New Hampshire but only very tightly, then win every state bar Vermont by the end of Super Tuesday, prompting Sanders to concede.

 

[Black Mamba]

Crabs - you've become too poll obsessed. Let me remind you

1. Caucus polling especially is weak and unstable.

2. Most of these elections are swung by last week and even last 48 hours deciders. The polls this far out still don't matter as much unlike a Presidential election.

3. In a caucus, ground game is key

You know all these things. That's not to say you shouldn't post a poll but you're becoming obsessed with every poll that shows Sanders doing better or winning. But they don't have that much worth. Maybe Sanders is ahead, maybe he's not. I'm going to wait til the end of January to actually start caring because that's when the polls have a chance to truly matter.

It's why I'm not jumping in on the GOP polling as much either, right now. It's why I'm not sold on Trump, either. I've explained why in previous posts. That's not to say I don't think Iowa is between Trump and Cruz because it is. But it's too early to put this much into it.

Here's what I know about Iowa. It's probably a competitive race. Bernie will have to get less reliable voters to the caucus. Ground game will matter. And if Hillary wins Iowa (in votes, not delegates), the Primary is done, over, finito.

Breathe a bit, dude.

edit: by "sold on Trump" I don't mean to argue he's not going to win...just that I'm not confident in any single candidate winning though Trump is definitely the favorite at the moment.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Nah, I'm cool. I'm a stats nerd so I just love stats. Honestly, I think most of these polls do not show us particularly useful information - IIRC something like a quarter of all voters make their mind up in the final week, so we're not even in the final quarter of the Iowan campaign so to speak, and we're before critical events like the final debate and the DMR register, plus we don't even know anything about the state of the ground game. Really the potential variation is huge; but that doesn't stop speculation being fun.

 

[Black Mamba]

Nah, I'm cool. I'm a stats nerd so I just love stats. Honestly, I think most of these polls do not show us particularly useful information - IIRC something like a quarter of all voters make their mind up in the final week, so we're not even in the final quarter of the Iowan campaign so to speak, and we're before critical events like the final debate and the DMR register, plus we don't even know anything about the state of the ground game. Really the potential variation is huge; but that doesn't stop speculation being fun.

The speculation is fun but the whole "this pollster is Hillary favorable" and "this pollster gets a C from 538" is grating.

 

[Daniel B·]

Did anyone catch the NY Times The Lawyer Who Became DuPont's Worst Nightmare article?

The story began in 1951, when DuPont started purchasing PFOA (which the company refers to as C8) from 3M for use in the manufacturing of Teflon. 3M invented PFOA just four years earlier; it was used to keep coatings like Teflon from clumping during production. Though PFOA was not classified by the government as a hazardous substance, 3M sent DuPont recommendations on how to dispose of it. It was to be incinerated or sent to chemical-waste facilities. DuPont’s own instructions specified that it was not to be flushed into surface water or sewers. But over the decades that followed, DuPont pumped hundreds of thousands of pounds of PFOA powder through the outfall pipes of the Parkersburg facility into the Ohio River. The company dumped 7,100 tons of PFOA-laced sludge into ‘‘digestion ponds’’: open, unlined pits on the Washington Works property, from which the chemical could seep straight into the ground. PFOA entered the local water table, which supplied drinking water to the communities of Parkersburg, Vienna, Little

Despite its length, it's well worth a read, but what really pisses me off, is DuPont only got a slap on the rist, from the E.P.A., and with a Hillary presidency, I just can't see anything changing:

The letter led, four years later, in 2005, to DuPont’s reaching a $16.5 million settlement with the E.P.A., which had accused the company of concealing its knowledge of PFOA’s toxicity and presence in the environment in violation of the Toxic Substances Control Act. (DuPont was not required to admit liability.) At the time, it was the largest civil administrative penalty the E.P.A. had obtained in its history, a statement that sounds more impressive than it is. The fine represented less than 2 percent of the profits earned by DuPont on PFOA that year.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Honestly, I think the critical thing now is the final debate before Iowa, and maaaybe who the Des Moines Register decides to endorse. Barring any wild shocks like Warren endorsing someone or a terrorist attack on US soil, the winner will be the person who does the best in the final debate. That's the reason I still think Clinton is more likely; she will steady the ship, go on to win by a reasonable margin (~5%), probably still lose New Hampshire but only very tightly, then win every state bar Vermont by the end of Super Tuesday, prompting Sanders to concede.

Yeah this is actually pretty much what I'm expecting.

Clinton isn't going to let this one slip away.

 

[And_Gignac]

PPP is still considered fairly reliable and stable.

It is.Probably one of the most reliable pollsters out there.

Tomorrow we get the Des Moines poll, the most accurate one in 2008 with Dems.

Even when the paper endorsed Hillary Clinton over Obama, their poll was the only poll (iirc) that had Obama winning with a margin bigger than the margin of error.

Nah, I'm cool. I'm a stats nerd so I just love stats. Honestly, I think most of these polls do not show us particularly useful information - IIRC something like a quarter of all voters make their mind up in the final week, so we're not even in the final quarter of the Iowan campaign so to speak, and we're before critical events like the final debate and the DMR register, plus we don't even know anything about the state of the ground game. Really the potential variation is huge; but that doesn't stop speculation being fun.

DMR endorsed Clinton in 2008. It means not a lot. Specially not in an election fueled by anti-establishment narratives.

He is below the 15% threshold and will be re-assigned. He's not a spoiler. He'd only be a spoiler if he managed to get 15% of the vote in some districts, which I think is... unlikely.

Oh yes! But the narrative that winning with "natural" votes is something preferable for Sanders to give a complete punch in the guts to the Clinton campaign.

 

[And_Gignac]

dp

 

[Holmes]

PPP is good lol, but Melkr is right in that the Selzer poll is the best. Black Mamba is also correct that ground game will make the difference between a win or a loss, so that might be a better barometer to consider.

 

[Yellowtail]

Honestly, I think the critical thing now is the final debate before Iowa, and maaaybe who the Des Moines Register decides to endorse. Barring any wild shocks like Warren endorsing someone or a terrorist attack on US soil, the winner will be the person who does the best in the final debate. That's the reason I still think Clinton is more likely; she will steady the ship, go on to win by a reasonable margin (~5%), probably still lose New Hampshire but only very tightly, then win every state bar Vermont by the end of Super Tuesday, prompting Sanders to concede.

DMR endorsement is overrated. They endorsed Clinton in 2008 remember. Bradley in 2000 too for that matter.

The biggest problem with the polls (even Selzer's) is that they treat the caucus like a primary by measuring the popular vote. But we'll never know the popular vote. Sanders may well come out on top by that measure. But can he pile up the delegates all over the states? Getting 1000 enthusiastic college-aged supporters to turn out in an Iowa City precinct can be worth as many delegates as 100 people turning out in a suburban precinct. We'll have to wait and see.

 

[Makai]

How do we measure ground game though? On the Republican side, Trump's is evaluated to be in the range between nonexistent and formidable.

 

[Acosta]

It´s quite incredible how Jeb makes boring/depressing every picture he is in. It must be a mutant power or something.

 

[Black Mamba]

How do we measure ground game though? On the Republican side, Trump's is evaluated to be in the range between nonexistent and formidable.

Honestly, we can only really evaluate it post-voting.

 

[NeoXChaos]

DMR endorsement is overrated. They endorsed Clinton in 2008 remember. Bradley in 2000 too for that matter.

The biggest problem with the polls (even Selzer's) is that they treat the caucus like a primary by measuring the popular vote. But we'll never know the popular vote. Sanders may well come out on top by that measure. But can he pile up the delegates all over the states? Getting 1000 enthusiastic college-aged supporters to turn out in an Iowa City precinct can be worth as many delegates as 100 people turning out in a suburban precinct. We'll have to wait and see.

lol no wonder the D side has delegates as the percentages. The R side has actual vote tallies. So how in the world do we know who won if we don't get vote tallies?delegates?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

lol no wonder the D side has delegates as the percentages. The R side has actual vote tallies. So how in the world do we know who won if we don't get vote tallies?delegates?

We get vote tallies from each district, iirc, at the end of each caucus when people split into their groups to send delegates to the next stage. We won't know what O'Malley got because I don't think he will hit 15% and therefore he will be redistributed before votes are cast. Some people in camp Sanders/Clinton might be persuaded during the caucus process itself, and we won't be able to tell how many either, other than by assuming the polls were right and supposing the difference represents net converted supporters.

 

[Black Mamba]

lol no wonder the D side has delegates as the percentages. The R side has actual vote tallies. So how in the world do we know who won if we don't get vote tallies?delegates?

Irrelevant. Whoever wins the % wins in the media and the narrative. If Hillary wins that, the game is over. Bernie can get more delegates, won't matter.

 

[Yellowtail]

lol no wonder the D side has delegates as the percentages. The R side has actual vote tallies. So how in the world do we know who won if we don't get vote tallies?delegates?

Precinct caucuses elect county delegates, and the total number of county delegates for each candidate get converted into state delegates. Which the Iowa Democratic Party reports.

Trust in Debbie.

(The 2500 states delegates are what get converted into a percentage count. Each candidate later takes a percentage of 45 actual delegates to the convention that are calculated slightly differently. But these are irrelevant in the media narrative. And at no point do we actually get the popular vote).

 

[Deleted member 231381]

On a different note entirely...

http://www.theguardian.com/business...at-2016-financial-crisis-warns-city-pessimist

Thoughts?

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

On a different note entirely...

http://www.theguardian.com/business...at-2016-financial-crisis-warns-city-pessimist

Thoughts?

Listening to perma-bears or bulls when it comes to the financial world is like listening to die hard liberals or conservatives in election outcomes.

 

[Bowdz]

On yet another different note...

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pentagon-2-u-s-navy-boats-held-iran-military-n495031

Iranian hostage crisis 2.0. Obama = Carter confirmed. Trump = Reagan. GLORIOUS times incoming.

 

[PBY]

On yet another different note...

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/pentagon-2-u-s-navy-boats-held-iran-military-n495031

Iranian hostage crisis 2.0. Obama = Carter confirmed. Trump = Reagan. GLORIOUS times incoming.

Yo this is actually awful

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I don't think that'll go anywhere. Iran doesn't really want to upset the US too much; Rouhani is a moderate and their economy had a pretty big uptick after the sanctions were partially listed.

 

[ivysaur12]

538 forecasts (these are changes to win, not the actual percentages that each candidate will get in the specific race):

IA (R):

Cruz - 42%
Trump - 42%
Rubio - 9%

Polls-Plus IA (R):

Cruz - 49%
Trump - 28%
Rubio 0 18%

IA (D):

Clinton - 55%
Sanders - 45%

Polls-Plus IA (D):

Clinton - 73%
Sanders - 27%

NH (R):

Trump - 55%
Rubio - 12%
Cruz - 9%
Kasich - 8%
Christie - 7%
Bush - 5%

Polls-Plus NH (R):

Trump - 39%
Rubio - 23%
Cruz - 13%
Kasich - 11%
Christie - 7%
Bush - 6%

NH (D):

Sanders - 73%
Clinton - 27%

Polls-Plus NH (D):

Clinton - 53%
Sanders - 47%

 

[Veritigo_X]

Yo this is actually awful

Iran has already said they are releasing them. Shortest hostage crisis ever.

 

[Black Mamba]

Frank Thorp VVerified account
&#8207;@frankthorpNBC
Rep Steve King (R-IA) will be leaving his guest seat for the #SOTU open "for 55 million unborn, aborted babies"

LOL.

 

[A Human Becoming]

538 forecasts (these are changes to win, not the actual percentages that each candidate will get in the specific race):

IA (R):

Cruz - 42%
Trump - 42%
Rubio - 9%

Polls-Plus IA (R):

Cruz - 49%
Trump - 28%
Rubio 0 18%

IA (D):

Clinton - 55%
Sanders - 45%

Polls-Plus IA (D):

Clinton - 73%
Sanders - 27%

NH (R):

Trump - 55%
Rubio - 12%
Cruz - 9%
Kasich - 8%
Christie - 7%
Bush - 5%

Polls-Plus NH (R):

Trump - 39%
Rubio - 23%
Cruz - 13%
Kasich - 11%
Christie - 7%
Bush - 6%

NH (D):

Sanders - 73%
Clinton - 27%

Polls-Plus NH (D):

Clinton - 53%
Sanders - 47%

Even after crab's explanation I still don't know whether I should take one more seriously than the other.

The speculation is fun but the whole "this pollster is Hillary favorable" and "this pollster gets a C from 538" is grating.

I understand that feeling, but I think everyone can agree history shows some pollsters are better than others. Who else there takes the time to rate the different pollsters? How much those grades matter I think should be decided by the individual. I do think it's wrong to discredit them altogether, which I felt ivysaur was saying in the other thread about their rating of PPP. I felt he was indicating it was due to a personal vendetta Nate had against them, as they did layout an argument I felt at least somewhat compelling (but confusing). Maybe they should be rated a B or a B+ because Nate holds a bias against PPP, but the grade was not simply due to them not providing Nate with the information he wanted.

Five Thirty Eight is not perfect, of course they're going to have their own preferences, but they make an effort to look at real numbers and criticize all candidates (maybe more so with Donald Trump, but I would label that skepticism).

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Honestly, whether you take one more seriously than the other entirely comes down to how much you think endorsements are going to be valued in this election. I think we can safely say there is no real precedent to candidates like Trump and Sanders, so we can't actually say definitively and have to use our reasoned intuitions as to whether endorsements will count this cycle or not. Make what you will of that.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yo this is actually awful

This has happened before.

 

[ivysaur12]

What fun! Kim Davis will be at the SOTU!!

 

[Plinko]

Hypothetical situation:

Sanders pulls off shocking wins over Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire.

What happens to the race?

 

[shinra-bansho]

I don't think as candidates they're that unprecedented.
I'd say the environment has changed a lot. For Trump this is the culmination of discontent in the Republican party with their leadership for perceived failings in stopping the tide of change.

I think for Sanders it's more the greater reach available via "new" media.

 

[B-Dubs]

Hypothetical situation:

Sanders pulls off shocking wins over Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire.

What happens to the race?

Depends on how South Carolina breaks. If Bernie can start moving the african-american vote his way then he can take it, if not then he'll still lose.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Hypothetical situation:

Sanders pulls off shocking wins over Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire.

What happens to the race?

Supposedly all those states where Clinton is doing really well will suddenly turn on her. Even though this didn't really happen in 2008.

 

[Black Mamba]

Hypothetical situation:

Sanders pulls off shocking wins over Clinton in Iowa and New Hampshire.

What happens to the race?

It becomes a real race? Clinton has to win South Carolina, of course.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Depends on how South Carolina breaks. If Bernie can start moving the african-american vote his way then he can take it, if not then he'll still lose.

I really think that's setting false expectations. Nevada will be a better indicator than South Carolina, in the unlikely situation that's where we end up.