Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Wouldn't 40 percent of a Democratic primary actually be a relatively small percentage of all people?
-
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 2015-2016 |OT3| If someone named PhoenixDark leaves your party, call the cops
- Thread starter Diablos
- Start date
- Status
Wouldn't 40 percent of a Democratic primary actually be a relatively small percentage of all people?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/whos-winning-iowa-and-new-hampshire/
This is actually quite an interesting article. Particularly, about how exactly endorsements are featured in the polls-plus model (see paragraphs on Cruz and the last paragraph). Essentially, Silver's saying they have an impact on the decision-making progress, so if someone has better endorsements than their polls, you expect their polls to rise as more and more people make a final decision. However, on the day of the election, people have effectively made their final decision, so endorsements will not change the difference between the polls-only and polls-plus forecasts - in other word, you'd expect them to trend toward one another by election day. If endorsements have as much impact as expected, then polls-only should trend towards plus, if not, vice versa.
This is actually quite an interesting article. Particularly, about how exactly endorsements are featured in the polls-plus model (see paragraphs on Cruz and the last paragraph). Essentially, Silver's saying they have an impact on the decision-making progress, so if someone has better endorsements than their polls, you expect their polls to rise as more and more people make a final decision. However, on the day of the election, people have effectively made their final decision, so endorsements will not change the difference between the polls-only and polls-plus forecasts - in other word, you'd expect them to trend toward one another by election day. If endorsements have as much impact as expected, then polls-only should trend towards plus, if not, vice versa.
Roland_Gunner
Member
That's always been Trump's biggest weaknesses, he is very unpopular outside of the people who already support him. Given the expectations that Cruz has Iowa locked up a strong second place showing would actually be a good result for the Don and give him more momentum going into New Hampshire. If Rubio can move up some and get a strong third place he'd probably get a boost as well.
that an even larger amount of sad and lonely democrats watched SOTU than usual? i was occupied with pretty little liars, 5 years foward....
eBay Huckster
Member
in 2008 in particular, assuming someone won exactly 40% of the Democratic primary popular vote that would equate to 14.176 million people, or roughly 4.6% of the total US population (and 10.8% of all people who ultimately voted in the general election that year)
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Mind you, Sanders does better among the general populus than likely Democratic voters, so that's rather reductive.
eBay Huckster
Member
good thing we're specifically talking about democratic primary voters to begin with, otherwise you might've had a point to make
He was just trying to keep himself together, it was probably really hard for him to sit so close to Uncle Joe.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
This is goalpost shifting. Bam Bam implied that Sanders' support came from political irrealists; I responded by saying that there aren't enough irrealists to power Sanders to his current margins. Bam Bam then said "well, you only need 5% of the population to get Sanders to his current margin". This is true... but that supposes that effectively every single irrealist in the population is in on Sanders; which just isn't true. Most irrealists don't vote at all, and the remainder are not likely primary voters precisely because they are not pragmatic - which is my point by saying Sanders' support is larger among the general population. It indicates his *likely Democratic voters* are far more pragmatists than not.
eBay Huckster
Member
i'm pretty sure this would only be goalpost shifting on my part if i was making any kind of actual argument
i'm making a quick and dirty calculation based on primary voters in response to bam bam's very much calculation-less post, in which he specifically mentioned democratic primary voters. nothing more, nothing less.
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
She hemmed a little bit on CBS and said it referred to "lots of things" and insinuated BLM stuff but she did specifically say it included Trump too.
Veritigo_X
Member
Confirmed it already? I thought it was going to be a Carly Simon type situation where we'd be wondering years from now who she was talking about.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Would be neat if he got an approval rating bounce, but I don't think that typically comes with a SOTU.
Back when SOTU had huge ratings, Bill Clinton used to get pretty sizeable approval ratings boosts after his yearly addresses. I haven't kept track in a long time, so I'm not sure if it happens to such extent anymore. He was usually an outlier.
..
And here's the Today Show link:
http://www.today.com/news/nikki-haley-donald-trump-has-contributed-irresponsible-talk-t66746
It's all coming together, dramatis. GOP is semi-imploding. Now we just have to hope Comey doesn't have Hillary dragged out of her campaign bus in handcuffs. I am only half kidding when I say that sadly.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
http://bdistricting.com/2010/
Thought you might find this interesting. It runs an algorithm to produce equal-population areas constrained by minimum travel time to the geographic centre of each area for almost all the US states' congressional districts and state house districts. Some states aren't that different - a small portion of Florida aside, for example, gerrymandering isn't so bad. Some are atrocious - Ohio (although we all knew that).
Thought you might find this interesting. It runs an algorithm to produce equal-population areas constrained by minimum travel time to the geographic centre of each area for almost all the US states' congressional districts and state house districts. Some states aren't that different - a small portion of Florida aside, for example, gerrymandering isn't so bad. Some are atrocious - Ohio (although we all knew that).
Poodlestrike
Banned
Me too. Hillary's chances seem like more of a question mark than I ever anticipated.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
There is - click on "Congress", "Assembly" or "Senate" instead of the name of the state.
E.g., for Ohio: http://bdistricting.com/2010/OH_Congress/, left is optimal, right is current.
As a side note, really makes you appreciate how empty most of America. A third of Nevada's population is one city, for example.
Would be great if you could also boot Toomey out of PA
Poodlestrike
Banned
If Hillary carries PA she will take care of that
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Yes. Algorithmic boundary setting is another thing I think that Sanders should push hard (or Clinton, but this will be opposed by the minority of Dem members who do benefit from gerrymandering, so I don't know how hard she'd push it). I wouldn't do it quite like this guy - I'd pick travel time, not geographic distance, to population-weighted centre, not geographic centre - but then the guy who set this algorithm basically agrees with both of those points and only didn't do a map for them because you need a hell of a computer to solve (each of those maps takes about 4 hours to generate as is).
EDIT: daaaamn, Maryland is atrocious.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Yeah, can't see PA splitting if the Democrat wins it by 5+ points.
Hoping Dems are at least able to take PA, OH, FL, NH, WI and IL for the Senate, which would give them 52 seats.
Anything past that would take some pretty profound circumstances; MO our Dem is raising gobs of money but I don't know how competitive he'll be against a fairly noncontroversial incumbent, AZ is mostly dependent on McCain losing the primary, IN same if some whack job wins it, and NC would probably come in a wave. I know we got a good recruit in Arkansas too, but let's be real.
I just hope Hillary can find a way to be electable. It's very surprising and unsettling when Sanders is performing better against the top GOPers.
One thing that was encouraging about Hillary's electability: after the Benghazi hearing, her numbers improved noticeably. We could look back and almost argue that the afterglow of that event was the high point of her campaign thus far. She seems awkward when fighting a Democratic primary opponent - which is the nature of close-quarters fighting for many politicians, honestly - but she seemed perfectly at home sparring with Republicans.. which is what the order of the day will be for 9+ months later on this year.
It was weird and memorable seeing folks who are normally silent or detractors cheering her on when she dished out more than what she was taking. And it flies against the "the more they see her, the less they like" theory. She's not going to exist in a vacuum.. she'll have a GOP foil. And at this rate, it's looking to be a really nice one.
Remains to be seen. The dynamic will change once the GOP primary winds down. Hillary is not doing much to inspire or even stay on the radar while GOP candidates dominate the news. That in and of itself is bad. She can't afford the e-mail scandal to actually turn out something that could put her in real legal trouble; even with things as they are now she's not doing much for herself.
I'm just really disappointed in her candidacy thus far. Once again, the Clintons say they run like they're going to lose but certainly don't act the part.
I'm just really disappointed in her candidacy thus far. Once again, the Clintons say they run like they're going to lose but certainly don't act the part.
I think that's a NeoGAF Gold feature?
I thought the opposing party winning mid-terms was usually a thing (at least when you weren't at war)?
See, I guess I always remember McCain pre 2008 primaries as a moderate who was heavily liked across the board (Kerry thought about him as a VP pick in 2004 IIRC), and was seen as the Anti-Bush because of how harsh Bush was against him in the 2000 primaries. Along with a fairly hawkish Democrat HRC - I was worried that a moderate Democrat vs a moderate Republican who would be able to avoid the Bush stink because of his moderate stances (at the time) and publicly known political battles against GWB could end poorly.
Part of this is definitely colored by watching Kerry lose to GWB and watching the Dems botch that presidential race. I definitely thought Clinton / the Dem machine at the time could similarly botch a race again. We had spent a lot of energy trying to show everyone how important the 2004 election was going to be (because of SCOTUS replacements); and we had been mostly ignored. Basically I was worried a non-Obama candidate would lead to a similar situation that we had in 2004, an election we should have won but due to voter apathy (economy) + party incompetence + not enough differentiation between the candidates, we would end up somehow pulling defeat from the jaws of victory.
But hey, if I'm wrong (and you do make some darn good points), I am super duper happy to be wrong.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
Bill Clinton? Ronald Reagan?
Absolutely this, especially Palin being a desperation pick. And let's make the point even clearer-- it might have been closer if not for the economy collapsing, but McCain was never, ever going to win as a huge hawk in 2008 when just about everybody was sick of war in the middle east.
Roland_Gunner
Member
Obama is 15 years younger than Clinton. Beyond the years he didn't come of age during Vietnam and its aftermath so its fair to say they're of different generations. That said, HRC would have pounded McCain in '08 though I doubt she would have gotten a better margin than Obama.
Aaron Strife
Banned
The out party usually gains in midterms, but it can't go unsaid how bad 2006 was for Republicans. Put it this way, no incumbent Democrat at the House, Senate or gubernatorial level lost, nor did Republicans gain any open D-held seats.
McCain was the best candidate the GOP could have hoped for, but he wasn't winning. I think I'll retract my previous statement about Hillary winning by a smaller margin, I think it would have shook out about the same. The EV count might have been smaller because I imagine Hillary would have played a narrower field though, unlike Obana who was spending everywhere because why not (this is how he won Indiana)
Btw Democrats picked up a 70-30 Romney Senate seat in Oklahoma last night. Wish they would start winning these in places that matter lol
McCain was the best candidate the GOP could have hoped for, but he wasn't winning. I think I'll retract my previous statement about Hillary winning by a smaller margin, I think it would have shook out about the same. The EV count might have been smaller because I imagine Hillary would have played a narrower field though, unlike Obana who was spending everywhere because why not (this is how he won Indiana)
Btw Democrats picked up a 70-30 Romney Senate seat in Oklahoma last night. Wish they would start winning these in places that matter lol
QuiteWhittle
Member
I think Clinton would've lost Indiana(no bleed over home state bounce from Illinois), North Carolina(black turnout probably would be much lower), and Colorado(youth weren't that excited) and won Missouri, Arkansas, and West Virginia.
Yeah, so it looks like that Bush on Rubio savagery ruffled some feathers
Republicans warn Bush team against harming Rubio
‘Does he want his legacy to be that he elected Donald Trump,’ GOP strategist asks.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...am-against-harming-rubio-217651#ixzz3x8no095h
Some of these quotes tho:
“This thing has been mismanaged and screwed up since the beginning,” said a Jeb Bush backer in the Washington area who worked in both previous Bush administrations. “It’s gotten to the point where the old-timers are saying ‘it’s really sad.’ How as presumptive leader with $100 million in the bank did you get yourself in a box where you have to attack Rubio and Christie to win your lane?”
The best though is this:
Both of Bush’s events Tuesday drew more people than staffers had expected, a sign, supporters say, that he could still be a factor, especially with a strong organization able to harvest whatever support he has. “Survey research indicates that 70 percent of the people are still undecided. The calling our campaign is doing yields about that same number,” said David Orman, a top Bush adviser in Iowa. “That is not out of line with caucus precedent: people break late.”
THAT HOPE
Republicans warn Bush team against harming Rubio
‘Does he want his legacy to be that he elected Donald Trump,’ GOP strategist asks.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/...am-against-harming-rubio-217651#ixzz3x8no095h
Some of these quotes tho:
“This thing has been mismanaged and screwed up since the beginning,” said a Jeb Bush backer in the Washington area who worked in both previous Bush administrations. “It’s gotten to the point where the old-timers are saying ‘it’s really sad.’ How as presumptive leader with $100 million in the bank did you get yourself in a box where you have to attack Rubio and Christie to win your lane?”
The best though is this:
Both of Bush’s events Tuesday drew more people than staffers had expected, a sign, supporters say, that he could still be a factor, especially with a strong organization able to harvest whatever support he has. “Survey research indicates that 70 percent of the people are still undecided. The calling our campaign is doing yields about that same number,” said David Orman, a top Bush adviser in Iowa. “That is not out of line with caucus precedent: people break late.”
THAT HOPE
Black Republican
Member
i get its all politics, but the quick response is really desperate
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...f-a-moment-in-macho-foreign-policy-posturing/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...f-a-moment-in-macho-foreign-policy-posturing/
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think she would have won Arkansas. The draw on Arkansas was Bill's, not hers; she's never been quite as well received there and besides Arkansas is one of the rare states demographically trending Republican. I also don't think she'd have taken West Virginia, McCain won it by a 13-point margin. Conversely, I don't think she'd have lost Colorado for similar reasons. If Clinton had beaten Obama in 2012, comparatively she'd have lost Indiana and North Carolina, and won Missouri instead. Possibly lost Florida too, but I doubt that. Still a pretty convincing 310-228, though.
Republic of Ezo
Member
She's dominated every single debate so far and has been pushing a pretty damn liberal agenda. What else can she do to inspire confidence beyond that?
Also, she's not going to be indicted. Period. Stop Diablosing, Diablos.
.@SamWangPhD is on Twitter this morning talking about what we discussed yesterday: the idea that Trump is getting more theoretical second-pick support from "establishment" candidates than many realize, and that it's hurting establishment prospects.
TPM has this new piece out:
Why The Conventional Wisdom Is Wrong About The Plight Of GOP Moderates
Love that description of Christie as "prickly." Not sure why.
..
He's also pointing out that the ongoing circular firing squad among establishments (Rubio & Christie fighting, Christie & Paul sniping, Bush & Rubio sparring, etc) points to an underlying faith that the party will still end-up deciding - but that this might only apply in "normal" cycles.
{interesting side note: GAF's forum software won't allow users to start a post with an "@" symbol. Neat quirk.}
TPM has this new piece out:
Why The Conventional Wisdom Is Wrong About The Plight Of GOP Moderates
Love that description of Christie as "prickly." Not sure why.
..
He's also pointing out that the ongoing circular firing squad among establishments (Rubio & Christie fighting, Christie & Paul sniping, Bush & Rubio sparring, etc) points to an underlying faith that the party will still end-up deciding - but that this might only apply in "normal" cycles.
{interesting side note: GAF's forum software won't allow users to start a post with an "@" symbol. Neat quirk.}
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
that thing about voters not choosing candidates for logical reasons supports what I was saying earlier about why Sanders plays better with undecideds in the GE. Hillary can't win the HUELEN vote.
Nazgul_Hunter
Member
The whole Christie thing exemplifies this the best. Christie was basically gonna play the Trump part, if this election didn't get so crazy. He was gonna be the "loudmouth straightshooter with no filter."
It's also getting to the point (or it might be there, haven't added up polls) where the aggregate non-establishment support is greater than the establishment support altogether. It's a very losing strategy what these dumb dumbs are doing.
Aaron Strife
Banned
If you recall Romney's press conference the night of the Benghazi attacks, it's not that surprising. Republicans desperately want to delegitimize Obama's foreign policy because it would cripple his legacy. The economy and Obamacare have worked out about as well as they could have, he's on the right side of social issues and he's a gifted politician. The only thing that could sink him is a major terrorist attack (or the economy going bad in the eleventh hour), so anytime an incident like this flares up the GOP is going to treat it like one.
It was smart of Obama to put the onus on Congress to declare war on ISIL. Whether we agree on the necessity of that or not, to the average American that's the main thing weighing him down.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I'm tempted to hedge a few bets on Cruz. I think the markets undervalue him.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked