• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
I'm with FiveThirtyEight: Focus only on the averages for Iowa and NH since there's no national primary. The results from those affect the ones after.
 
M

Makai

Member
rubio-office-space.gif
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
A Human Becoming said:
I'm with FiveThirtyEight: Focus only on the averages for Iowa and NH since there's no national primary. The results from those affect the ones after.
Click to expand...

That's how he looked at 2008 too, and it's not a bad way to look at it, but I still think national polls matter. Iowa and New Hampshire don't always completely turn the race on its head, they just sometimes do. It's 50/50.

But still, Trump seems to be in a pretty good position either way. He only needs 2nd in Iowa if he gets first in New Hampshire.
 
M

Mike M

Nick N
A Human Becoming said:
I'm with FiveThirtyEight: Focus only on the averages for Iowa and NH since there's no national primary. The results from those affect the ones after.
Click to expand...
Isn't Iowa the single outlier at this point where trump doesn't have a huge lead? He's like 16 points ahead in the aggregate for NH.
 
B

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Mike M said:
Isn't Iowa the single outlier at this point where trump doesn't have a huge lead? He's like 16 points ahead in the aggregate for NH.
Click to expand...

I think so, but even then Iowa was always going to be a battle for him. I feel like he'll probably take second there, so if he wins NH he'll be off to the races.
 
H

Holmes

Member
A Human Becoming said:
I'm with FiveThirtyEight: Focus only on the averages for Iowa and NH since there's no national primary. The results from those affect the ones after.
Click to expand...
Bill Clinton lost Iowa and New Hampshire in 1992 and still won the nomination.

Also in a similar situation, Romney lost Iowa and South Carolina in 2012 and still won the nomination.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Clinton didn't contest Iowa, so that's misleading.
 
M

Maledict

Member
Yep - 1993 isn't a good year for comparisons because of the field. Iowa was uncontested by all candidates due to t being a forgone conclusion as they had a sitting Iowan running, and New Hampshire was seen as locked down as well - that's why Clinton coming third allowed him to catapult to victory.

It's why Christie is going to be the establishment candidate if things go as they are currently heading and Cruz takes Iowa and Trump takes New Hampshire. He'll be the one with the coveted 'exceeded expectations, comeback kid' label that the lower number candidates need.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Maledict said:
Yep - 1993 isn't a good year for comparisons because of the field. Iowa was uncontested by all candidates due to t being a forgone conclusion as they had a sitting Iowan running, and New Hampshire was seen as locked down as well - that's why Clinton coming third allowed him to catapult to victory.

It's why Christie is going to be the establishment candidate if things go as they are currently heading and Cruz takes Iowa and Trump takes New Hampshire. He'll be the one with the coveted 'exceeded expectations, comeback kid' label that the lower number candidates need.
Click to expand...

I can't see this being plausible. Christie gets 3rd or 4th in new hampshire (which he probably will after trump, rubio and cruz) and he has no real path forward. his entire operation has been concentrated on a strong showing in new hampshire and he simply doesn't have it.

He'll end up getting blown out over the next dozen states or so with no funding or ground operation to compete with cruz and trump until he drops out.

The establishment candidates are in dire straits right now. their best option (rubio) isn't actually prepared to make a serious run at the presidency and barely seems to want it in the first place. After new hampshire the establishment is going to have to hold their noses and back Ted Cruz- he's the only one that won't be horribly damaged by trump taking new hampshire, as he (presumably) will be taking iowa.

The only way around this I can see is is Jeb! and Rubio drop out, endorse christie, and direct their superpacs to run pro-christie ads while their organizations assist in GOTV efforts- but there is absolutely no way this one happens.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Manmademan said:
The only way around this I can see is is Jeb! and Rubio drop out, endorse christie, and direct their superpacs to run pro-christie ads while their organizations assist in GOTV efforts- but there is absolutely no way this one happens.
Click to expand...

Problem there is that at best, that would tie Christie with Cruz (since its highly unlikely that 100% of the votes would go to Chris even then).... and also that it would give Florida to Trumpo on a platter.

Establishment is SoL, tbh.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Coriolanus said:
Problem there is that at best, that would tie Christie with Cruz (since its highly unlikely that 100% of the votes would go to Chris even then).... and also that it would give Florida to Trumpo on a platter.

Establishment is SoL, tbh.
Click to expand...

I said it was a way around backing cruz...I didn't say it would work. Christie is a horrible candidate and wouldn't win a national election under the best of circumstances.

The establishment is pretty much screwed. If anything, this election has shown there are a LOT LESS rational "establishment republicans" than a lot of people think.
 
M

Maledict

Member
I agree it won't happen, but it's the only path I can see.

I also think Christie will beat Rubio in New Hampshire. The state has a long track record of throwing curveballs into the primary process, and Christie has been putting in the legwork to make it happen.

Also worth remembering that he's basically trying to copy McCain in 2008. McCains campaign had collapsed, and he bet the farm on New Hampshire. Whilst he did have more of an operation set up than Christie does, it wasn't much more. Christie's plan is to be the highest performing establishment candidate in Nee Hampshire and use that as his platform whilst Trump and Cruz shred each other over the southern states.

Like everyone else, I'm not sure how it will work given the current numbers, but it's the only rational way forward for an establishment candidate right now - I think Rubio's plan is completely balmy, and he's not putting in the effort to make it work even if it was sound.
 
O

OrangeGrayBlue

Member
Sea Manky said:
In that thread Jack Remington linked this superb essay.

After the Benghazi hearing, I switched my primary vote from Bernie to Hillary for exactly this reason, and the author of the piece expresses it far better than I ever could.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't deny that Hillary has faced a lot of sexism throughout her career, but at the same time a number of these critiques are specific to who she is, not just that she's a female politician. You don't see all of these same critiques leveled against Elizabeth Warren, for instance. Warren doesn't have a reputation for being a calculating politician, or for trying too hard to be hip. In Hillary's case there are definitely sexist assumptions and accusations working against her, but at the same time she is genuinely awful at coming across like a real human being. She's a policy wonk who first and foremost enjoys politics and the political process. I think it would suit her well to embrace that rather than focus on being relatable. It's easy to relate to someone who has been a politician for decades and therefore discusses and thinks mostly about politics. You don't need to do anything else in my opinion.


Maledict said:
I agree it won't happen, but it's the only path I can see.

I also think Christie will beat Rubio in New Hampshire. The state has a long track record of throwing curveballs into the primary process, and Christie has been putting in the legwork to make it happen.

Also worth remembering that he's basically trying to copy McCain in 2008. McCains campaign had collapsed, and he bet the farm on New Hampshire. Whilst he did have more of an operation set up than Christie does, it wasn't much more. Christie's plan is to be the highest performing establishment candidate in Nee Hampshire and use that as his platform whilst Trump and Cruz shred each other over the southern states.

Like everyone else, I'm not sure how it will work given the current numbers, but it's the only rational way forward for an establishment candidate right now - I think Rubio's plan is completely balmy, and he's not putting in the effort to make it work even if it was sound.
Click to expand...

I don't think any of it really matters. Trump, Cruz and Carson make up something like 65% of current republican support. I don't think Rubio, Christie or Bush could shore up the entirety of the remaining 35% and then somehow erode the anti-establishment majority enough to win the nomination. I think the GOP is really going to reap what they've sown this election cycle. I still think Rubio is their best bet for a competitive general election, but I don't think the party as a whole gives a damn about electability, which is sort of admirable in its own way.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
Maledict said:
I agree it won't happen, but it's the only path I can see.

I also think Christie will beat Rubio in New Hampshire. The state has a long track record of throwing curveballs into the primary process, and Christie has been putting in the legwork to make it happen.

Also worth remembering that he's basically trying to copy McCain in 2008. McCains campaign had collapsed, and he bet the farm on New Hampshire. Whilst he did have more of an operation set up than Christie does, it wasn't much more. Christie's plan is to be the highest performing establishment candidate in Nee Hampshire and use that as his platform whilst Trump and Cruz shred each other over the southern states.

Like everyone else, I'm not sure how it will work given the current numbers, but it's the only rational way forward for an establishment candidate right now - I think Rubio's plan is completely balmy, and he's not putting in the effort to make it work even if it was sound.
Click to expand...

The problem here is that McCain actually won new hampshire in 2008. Christie in the best case scenario doesn't finish higher than 'distant second' and that's a serious, serious stretch. third is probably more realistic. That's not going to be enough even if you slap the "establishment!" qualifier on his campaign.

If rubio was a serious candidate I would probably say having christie drop out and back him would be a better move- but Rubio isn't, and would piss away the opportunity just as he has every other opportunity that's landed in his lap.

This is a cruz/trump election, and it's going to be amazing.
 
O

OrangeGrayBlue

Member
Coriolanus said:
Hillary should be Merkel, then? Embrace the nofunallowed.jpg
Click to expand...

I think it's a good way to be taken seriously, yes. I don't think a single voter is going to watch the "Chillin' in Cedar Rapids" video or any of the other attempts at Being Human® she's tried out and think to themselves that they're more confident in her ability to be president than they were before. Some of Hillary's best moments are during debates when she's straight to the point, serious, and shows that she really puts time and effort into researching the topics at hand. Then you see her attempt to be hip or relatable in some youtube video and it's like watching a different person.
 
M

Manmademan

Member
OrangeGrayBlue said:
I wouldn't deny that Hillary has faced a lot of sexism throughout her career, but at the same time a number of these critiques are specific to who she is, not just that she's a female politician. You don't see all of these same critiques leveled against Elizabeth Warren, for instance. Warren doesn't have a reputation for being a calculating politician, or for trying too hard to be hip. In Hillary's case there are definitely sexist assumptions and accusations working against her, but at the same time she is genuinely awful at coming across like a real human being. She's a policy wonk who first and foremost enjoys politics and the political process. I think it would suit her well to embrace that rather than focus on being relatable. It's easy to relate to someone who has been a politician for decades and therefore discusses and thinks mostly about politics. You don't need to do anything else in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Warren hasn't tried to run for national office. Hillary has twice, and had a spotlight on her as first lady for 8 years before that. There is a WORLD of difference between what you can get away with as a junior senator from a small new england state, and running for president. the level of scrutiny is much higher, and being "relatable" becomes a lot more important.

That's not exclusive to women either- Men fall into this trap all the time. GWB was elected entirely on the "guy you want to have a beer with" appeal, and Romney was doomed not because his policies were bad, but because he consistently came off as inauthentic and unlikeable. Even Obama is under a ton of pressure to avoid anything that could get him slapped with the "angry black man" label and takes a lot of pains to carefully craft his language to avoid it.

it's a completely different ballgame. If warren attempted a presidential run without moderating her behavior, she'd get destroyed.
 
O

OrangeGrayBlue

Member
Manmademan said:
Warren hasn't tried to run for national office. Hillary has twice, and had a spotlight on her as first lady for 8 years before that. There is a WORLD of difference between what you can get away with as a junior senator from a small new england state, and running for president. the level of scrutiny is much higher, and being "relatable" becomes a lot more important.

That's not exclusive to women either- Men fall into this trap all the time. GWB was elected entirely on the "guy you want to have a beer with" appeal, and Romney was doomed not because his policies were bad, but because he consistently came off as inauthentic and unlikeable. Even Obama is under a ton of pressure to avoid anything that could get him slapped with the "angry black man" label and takes a lot of pains to carefully craft his language to avoid it.

it's a completely different ballgame. If warren attempted a presidential run without moderating her behavior, she'd get destroyed.
Click to expand...


Right, however I don't believe that accusations against Warren, were she to make a serious bid at the presidency, would include that she changes her beliefs to suit what's popular or doesn't come across like a real person. I can definitely hear in my head the kind of narrative they would craft against her, but it wouldn't be that she's inauthentic. My point, and I think we're on the same page here, is that despite what the essay I initially replied to is suggesting, there are real flaws in Hillary Clinton as a candidate that are not just a matter of sexism putting women in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position.
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
It's not like Poobio has extensive groundgame in the post-NH states either. If Pisstie wins the establishment lane in NH, which I am fearful he might but still doubt he beats Poobio, what's to stop establishment support from swinging behind Pisstie and eeking out a 10-12% share of the vote in each of the next few states?

You figure that might end up with Dump winning the whole thing though.

I don't see any way forward for the "establishment" unless Poobio wins NH flat out.
 
F

FloydtheFathead

Member
Y2Kev said:
It's not like Poobio has extensive groundgame in the post-NH states either. If Pisstie wins the establishment lane in NH, which I am fearful he might but still doubt he beats Poobio, what's to stop establishment support from swinging behind Pisstie and eeking out a 10-12% share of the vote in each of the next few states?

You figure that might end up with Dump winning the whole thing though.

I don't see any way forward for the "establishment" unless Poobio wins NH flat out.
Click to expand...

I challenge you to come up with poop puns for every candidate Kev.. I don't think you can :)
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
Holmes said:
How exactly is it misleading? He didn't try to win it so it doesn't count? So do we not count Kasich's and Christie's showing in Iowa next year?
Click to expand...

How in the world is that comparable. Iowa was not contested that year, at all. It wasn't just Clinton it was all of the other candidates as well. No one outside of Iowa campaigned there or had staff there
 
C

Cheebo

Banned
Yellowtail said:
Back on board the Nate Silver train.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone has ever doubted Nate when it comes to general election analysis, thats his bread and butter. When it comes to primaries he is just guessing using his gut like the rest of us and openly admits that.
 
I

Incognito

Troll
Wow, this seems monumentally stupid. Apart from potentiality having hundreds of raids a la Elian Gonzalaz broadcast nonstop to the politics in the run up to the election. I mean, what the hell? Moreover, it won't actually fix the problem of families fleeing violence. Hopefully DHS puts the kibosh on this ridiculous idea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...p-table-main_immigration-920pm:homepage/story

The Department of Homeland Security has begun preparing for a series of raids that would target for deportation hundreds of families who have flocked to the United States since the start of last year, according to people familiar with the operation.

The nationwide campaign, to be carried out by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents as soon as early January, would be the first large-scale effort to deport families who have fled violence in Central America, those familiar with the plan said. More than 100,000 families with both adults and children have made the journey across the southwest border since last year, though this migration has largely been overshadowed by a related surge of unaccompanied minors.

The ICE operation would target only adults and children who have already been ordered removed from the United States by an immigration judge, according to officials familiar with the undertaking, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because planning is ongoing and the operation has not been given final approval by DHS. The adults and children would be detained wherever they can be found and immediately deported. The number targeted is expected to be in the hundreds and possibly greater.

The proposed deportations have been controversial inside the Obama administration, which has been discussing them for several months. DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson has been pushing for the moves, according to those with knowledge of the debate, in part because of a new spike in the number of illegal immigrants in recent months.
Click to expand...
 
U

User 406

Banned
OrangeGrayBlue said:
Right, however I don't believe that accusations against Warren, were she to make a serious bid at the presidency, would include that she changes her beliefs to suit what's popular or doesn't come across like a real person. I can definitely hear in my head the kind of narrative they would craft against her, but it wouldn't be that she's inauthentic. My point, and I think we're on the same page here, is that despite what the essay I initially replied to is suggesting, there are real flaws in Hillary Clinton as a candidate that are not just a matter of sexism putting women in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" position.
Click to expand...

Of course she has real flaws as a candidate. Every candidate does. The essay itself acknowledges in the very first paragraph that Hillary isn't perfect. Where the sexism comes in is transforming a flawed candidate who fought for health care reform in the 90s, has been fighting for women's issues all her life, and has one of the most liberal voting records in the senate, into a soulless power-hungry monster who does nothing but lie, cheat, and backstab her way to the top so she can sell out America.

If we're going to focus on the changing beliefs thing, look no further than Warren being a former Republican, Obama originally being against gay marriage, Bernie previously being against gun control, and so on. Every effective politician shifts their stances to suit their electorate, which is a good thing, since we want politicians who will do what we want. This does conflict with the voters' reflexive desire for "genuine" candidates, and navigating that particular whirlpool of cognitive dissonance is part of the social skills a politician needs.

In the end, Hillary has always been a staunch Democrat,
post-Goldwater shutup,
and has been on the liberal side of things a strong majority of the time. She's experienced, tough enough to endure decades of right-wing demonization, well vetted by their constant witch hunts, and has a good voting track record. She's a good candidate for President. And yet she gets an overwhelming ration of shit disproportionate to the usual dissatisfaction with a candidate's flaws, and a big part of it is generated from a place of sexism, driven by decades of Republican drum beating.

She's still standing, flaws and awkwardness and all. I can't help but like her for that.
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
Y'know.

This is evidently stating the obvious, but... there really is a grotesque difference between the way the right treats the first lady and how the left does it.

Or is my memory failing me and dems also went for Barbara and Laura in the same way that Hills and Michele suffered?
 
I

Ignatz Mouse

Banned
Chichikov said:
The percentages don't mean shit, they are quite literally bad math.
Okay technically they mean something, but they don't mean what people assume they mean - odds like you get when calculating a chance to win a poker hand.
But that talk is boring, shit, who want to talk about crap like bayesian inference, I nearly fell asleep while typing it, let me run some monte carlo simulations and show you pretty graphs!

ZlzMSd0.png


I AM A MATH WIZARD!
Click to expand...

In high school, I wrote a program in BASIC that was a primitive version of this, for a coin toss (which is what this looks like). Imagine that graph in extreme lo-res and monochrome.

No point except that seeing this triggered one heck of a nostalgia flashback.
 
R

Roland_Gunner

Member
Coriolanus said:
Y'know.

This is evidently stating the obvious, but... there really is a grotesque difference between the way the right treats the first lady and how the left does it.

Or is my memory failing me and dems also went for Barbara and Laura in the same way that Hills and Michele suffered?
Click to expand...

To be fair Hillary was much more involved in making policy than any first lady before her and the liberals were certainly willing to go after Nancy Reagan in the 80's.
 
Y

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Coriolanus said:
Y'know.

This is evidently stating the obvious, but... there really is a grotesque difference between the way the right treats the first lady and how the left does it.

Or is my memory failing me and dems also went for Barbara and Laura in the same way that Hills and Michele suffered?
Click to expand...

Laura Bush got slaughtered by the left because the left was constantly all, "you can't make my kids read if they don't want to!!!" etc.
 
R

RustyNails

Member
Politico says they have a secret tape of Cruz where he said repealing gay marriage will not be a top priority for him if elected president.
But in December, behind closed doors at a big-dollar Manhattan fundraiser, the quickly ascending presidential candidate assured a Republican gay-rights supporter that a Cruz administration would not make fighting same-sex marriage a top priority.
In a recording provided to POLITICO, Cruz answers a flat “No” when asked whether fighting gay marriage is a “top-three priority,” an answer that pleased his socially moderate hosts but could surprise some of his evangelical backers.
Click to expand...
Wonder how that will play in Iowa.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/ted-cruz-gay-marriage-secret-audio-217090
 
V

Veritigo_X

Member
Makai said:
I'm thinking about moving to NYC and looking for work when I get there. How crazy does this sound?
Click to expand...

Unless you have an ungodly amount saved up, I would recommend moving with a job already lined up. It's so expensive here that you'll burn through your savings fast without a steady source of income. What's the rush anyway?

It's a great place to live though, I highly recommend it.
 
M

Makai

Member
Veritigo_X said:
Unless you have an ungodly amount saved up, I would recommend moving with a job already lined up. It's so expensive here that you'll burn through your savings fast without a steady source of income. What's the rush anyway?

It's a great place to live though, I highly recommend it.
Click to expand...
My lease ends in a week.

I have about $11k saved. Brooklyn apartments look comparable to what I'm paying now.
 
P

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Y2Kev said:
yeah cause Trump is a real godwarrior

non-issue and total politico scoop
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think it's a huge issue for the far-right evangelicals, who Cruz seems to attract.
 
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