Support NeoGAF

[User 463088]

Merry Christmas, from one oligarch to another.

 

[gaugebozo]

Please tell me that's official, its the most Uncle Joe seasonal message ever.

I don't think so, I found one without the writing in a Google image search. :-/

But I know he'd approve of it.

 

[Daniel B·]

No doubt I get why she is responding to him. I said the exact same thing a few weeks ago. It narrows the narrative for her and pushes out Bernie and generic-other-dude, but her campaign's response has looked foolish at times and I think Trump might drive her negatives even higher than they already are. I don't know, but every time I see someone respond to Trump, they tend to look bad doing it. The only person I've seen win in responding to Trump is Obama because he points off the stupidity of all things Trump and dismisses him through humor. At the same time Obama also has the ability to call out the inflammatory rhetoric without looking scared, flustered, or angry. I haven't seen Hillary pull that off yet.

Bernie's response to Trump's comment, on Hillary's bathroom break, was rather good ("official" video link):

And, Cerium, I see you've changed your avatar! That was such a great inducement for me, to try ever harder to wipe that smile off Hillary's face, and I implore you to bring it back, pronto .

Merry Christmas to everybody, and here's to an awesome 2016 .

 

[Makai]

I think it's interesting that the top three contenders for the White House have strong ties to New York. Used to Southern politicians taking the spotlight.

 

[Third Strike]

I think it's interesting that the top three contenders for the White House have strong ties to New York. Used to Southern politicians taking the spotlight.

Who's the third person, besides Trump and Hillary?

Edit: Nevermind, I forgot that Sanders was born in Brooklyn.

 

[Makai]

More great Vines

Yummy Ted

Sorry

Pocket Pool

New Jeb Strategy

Violent Protestor

 

[Retromelon]

this one's the best https://vine.co/v/im177AlO0BV
santorum is killing me

https://vine.co/v/iWt521qBHuA hahaha

 

[ivysaur12]

That's the Skinny Arm. Very popular in greek life.

She hath mastered the SororityArm

EDIT: oh yay back to liking Nate Silver again

@NateSilver538: @SeanTrende @ValisJason: I'd put Dem chances at maybe 60% now as a result of GOP nomination process, vs. 45-50% in a "generic" environment.

 

[Holmes]

I love Gabriel Gundacker's Hillary vines.

https://vine.co/v/ezZ5TYLzXmA
https://vine.co/v/iB9wMYT7Jig

 

[Jack Remington]

45-50% chance. Lol.

Dems are at like 80% now. Was around 67% pre-Trump. The EC tie-breaker factor is huge.

 

[B-Dubs]

I think it's interesting that the top three contenders for the White House have strong ties to New York. Used to Southern politicians taking the spotlight.

We haven't had a New Yorker as president since FDR if I remember right.

 

[User1608]

Happy Holidays Poligaf! I've not been here much the last week and few days but I do love this OT. It's as comforting as hot chocolate.

I think it's interesting that the top three contenders for the White House have strong ties to New York. Used to Southern politicians taking the spotlight.

Definitely neat. Funny how life and politics can go sometimes.

 

[ivysaur12]

HEIDI HEITKAMP WISHES ALL OF YOU A MERRY NORTH DAKOTAN CHRISTMAS

https://twitter.com/SenatorHeitkamp/status/680438200813240320

Also, she's a poet!!

‘Twas the night before December
And the worry was setting in.
Will Congress Act?
Or let American families’ futures remain dim?
With no Export-Import Bank
Small businesses were feeling the impact,
And plummeting gas prices
Meant North Dakota’s oil production slacked.
Roads and bridges across the country
Needed repairs and updating,
And for the wind industry and farmers
Certainty was fading.
Action needed to be taken
Compromises to be made,
So Americans could be freed,
From this uncertain, partisan charade.
Thoughts of rural America
Flashed around in my head,
And I committed to working hard
As I curled up in bed.
The first week in December,
After kicking the can down the road,
A highway bill passed
And bipartisan efforts showed.
Included in the bill
Was a fix to reduce the harsh cuts
To the federal crop insurance program
That left too many farmers in the dust.
After months of frustration and partisan games,
Congress came to the rescue of American small businesses exporting abroad
By reauthorizing the Export-Import Bank
With the help of Cantwell, Murray and me — the Ex-Im squad.
A top priority of mine for a year and a half — 
Which most people thought crazy — 
Was to lift the outdated ban on exporting oil,
But so far, Congress had been too lazy.
I talked to my friends
On the right and the left
To educate them on this policy
And craft a deal with much deft.
Support for renewable energy
Was critical to the deal to lift the ban
Something I helped negotiate
And was long part of the plan.
Support for our farmers,
Investments in roads,
Certainty for small businesses
And a decades old ban about to erode.
By working together
Across the aisle friends and foes,
Congress did the work it needed to
Before the year came to a close.
December was busy,
But Congress got a lot done with much might
So for now Merry Christmas to all,
And to all a good night.

 

[Holmes]

HEIDI HEITKAMP WISHES ALL OF YOU A MERRY NORTH DAKOTAN CHRISTMAS

https://twitter.com/SenatorHeitkamp/status/680438200813240320

Also, she's a poet!!

Even better, Officer Finley is on duty in DC!

 

[FloydtheFathead]

Even better, Officer Finley is on duty in DC!

With Ugga?

 

[Manmademan]

45-50% chance. Lol.

Dems are at like 80% now. Was around 67% pre-Trump. The EC tie-breaker factor is huge.

I don't know what that dude is thinking. only insane people think dems had a 45-50% chance even BEFORE primaries started. We know the nominee was going to be clinton, and we know the democrats have an electoral college advantage.

fucking insanity to put this at anything less than 80-20%.

Nate's wishful thinking is getting the better of his political analysis.

 

[Holmes]

Nate wants it to be competitive, or at least pretend it is, because then more people care about his analysis and what he says.

 

[B-Dubs]

I don't know what that dude is thinking. only insane people think dems had a 45-50% chance even BEFORE primaries started. We know the nominee was going to be clinton, and we know the democrats have an electoral college advantage.

fucking insanity to put this at anything less than 80-20%.

Nate's wishful thinking is getting the better of his political analysis.

He might be stuck in the same situation everyone else is now that he isn't under someone else's umbrella: he needs a tight race to pull in traffic. When he was with the NYTimes he was free to say whatever the hell he wanted to since all they wanted was his honest analysis, but now he's got to make sure his site is getting enough traffic and no one is going to go to him more than once if he says it's a done deal already.

 

[Manmademan]

He might be stuck in the same situation everyone else is now that he isn't under someone else's umbrella: he needs a tight race to pull in traffic. When he was with the NYTimes he was free to say whatever the hell he wanted to since all they wanted was his honest analysis, but now he's got to make sure his site is getting enough traffic and no one is going to go to him more than once if he says it's a done deal already.

I guess I can see this. but what's the point of fivethirtyeight if it devolves into the same dishonest horse race bullshit as every other site?

the entire appeal of nate and his crew was supposed to be political analysis by the numbers, without all the bullshit spin. If this is all it's going to be, i might as well keep reading fucking politico or huffington post.

 

[B-Dubs]

I guess I can see this. but what's the point of fivethirtyeight if it devolves into the same dishonest horse race bullshit as every other site?

the entire appeal of nate and his crew was supposed to be political analysis by the numbers, without all the bullshit spin. If this is all it's going to be, i might as well keep reading fucking politico or huffington post.

Well, as soon as the actual math starts they'll likely go back to what we expect from them but until then they've got to pull in traffic somehow to stay afloat. I'm really not so sure he should have ever left the Times, it seemed like a pretty cushy gig.

 

[Makai]

80% seems overly confident to me.

 

[Y2Kev]

I think it's rational to say 50/50 but why 45? Why would the dems have a natural disadvantage?

 

[ivysaur12]

I think it's rational to say 50/50 but why 45? Why would the dems have a natural disadvantage?

Something about how we're coming off of 8 years of a Democratic presidency.

 

[Makai]

Something about how we're coming off of 8 years of a Democratic presidency.

Aside from a few social issues, American policy mood is moving rightward.

 

[B-Dubs]

Aside from a few social issues, American policy mood is moving rightward.

Except that it kind of isn't. The only way anyone could think that is if all they pay attention to is the GOP primaries. Just because one party has been moving right doesn't mean the country has.

 

[Jack Remington]

80% seems overly confident to me.

That's roughly my gauge of Rubio's probability of winning the nomination and the presidency.

If it's Trump, Cruz, Bush, Christie, Carson, or anyone else in that field, the chance of a Clinton victory approaches 100%. Rubio is literally their only shot, and I'd still put him well under 50-50 in a general.

 

[ivysaur12]

I'd say in a Hillary vs. Rubio match up, it's 60/40 Hillary. With anyone else, that number for Hillary goes up dramatically.

 

[Makai]

Except that it kind of isn't. The only way anyone could think that is if all they pay attention to is the GOP primaries. Just because one party has been moving right doesn't mean the country has.

I mentioned this in the thread with the "America is moving left" thinkpiece. Change in support for government programs is quantitatively measurable. This was my professor's specialty - time series analysis of public opinion polling. He takes six questions that have been asked verbatim every year since the 1950s. They're all in the form of "should we increase spending on _________". I remember the questions including education, environment, welfare, and something to do with race. They have nearly the same year-to-year deltas and can be combined into a single indicator - policy mood. The theory is that the public turns away from governments who go too far in one direction. I've seen the data for 2013 and 2014 and it's dipped even further.

Interactive version

 

[Aaron Strife]

Happy Christmas, everyone!

Looking forward to the customary roast elk and strained beet casserole, and opening presents under the holiday maypole.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I don't know what that dude is thinking. only insane people think dems had a 45-50% chance even BEFORE primaries started. We know the nominee was going to be clinton, and we know the democrats have an electoral college advantage.

fucking insanity to put this at anything less than 80-20%.

Nate's wishful thinking is getting the better of his political analysis.

not really when looking at it from a historical perspective. The last time a Democrat won a third term was FDR/Truman in 1940.

52 was a bust. 68 was a bust. Carter did not get a second term. We know how Al Gore went.

 

[Basileus777]

not really when looking at it from a historical perspective. The last time a Democrat won a third term was FDR/Truman in 1940.

52 was a bust. 68 was a bust. Carter did not get a second term. We know how Al Gore went.

52 was after 20 years Democratic rule. So we're looking at a sample size of three, is that really so predictive?

 

[Maledict]

Exactly - I swear Nate had even written an article once saying that the same party getting elected after a two term president isn't unusual at all when you look at the wider history.

 

[Republic of Ezo]

Aside from a few social issues, American policy mood is moving rightward.

I don't believe this for a second. The Republicans just bent over ass backwards to give the Dems the end to the sequester that the Republicans themselves forced. So budget hawkishness is out of style right now compared to what it was just in 2010-2011.

 

[Manmademan]

I'd say in a Hillary vs. Rubio match up, it's 60/40 Hillary. With anyone else, that number for Hillary goes up dramatically.

Pretty much. 80% came out of my ass more or less, but democrats have a pretty definitive advantage going in. The electoral college decides who gets to be president, and to win in 2016 Republicans would have to run the table on nearly every swing state, in the face of demographics that are rapidly favoring democrats. The electorate is getting younger and less white by the second- the white electorate that put GWB in office in 2000 against Gore is not enough to win this time, and they appear to have completely alienated hispanics. If Bush vs. Gore happened in today's environment, Bush would lose definitively.

We already knew the nominee was going to be Hillary a long time ago, with no serious challengers doing any kind of damage to her during a primary. That means that Hillary was clear to lay groundwork for the general and build the infrastructure she needs for a run at the general with the primaries being a technicality.

This is a hell of an advantage, even BEFORE we consider the kind of shape the GOP is in right now- splintered, dysfunctional, and turning on itself in every way possible.

Hillary herself has already been thoroughly, thoroughly vetted from her time during the Clinton administration as well as her primary run in 2008. There is literally nothing left the GOP can attack her with that the public doesn't consider old news. Conservative news cycles were full of "emails!" and "benghazi!" manufactured controversies, because they had little else- and those have run their course. There will be no october surprise, and much like the problem with Trump, negative ads aren't really effective against someone that is already THAT well known by the American public.

Hillary also has the "first woman president" working in her favor, as like it or not there will be people who normally tune out for politics paying attention for that alone, and they're going to be mostly women, which the GOP is already typically at a disadvantage with versus the democratic party. At Hillary's best, she was able to drive voters to the polls in numbers almost identical to Obama circa 2008. There is nobody- NOBODY on the GOP bench that is capable of generating that kind of support on their best day. None. Zombie Reagan could come back from the grave and run against Obama 2008 and he'd get slaughtered too. 2016 Hillary is just as capable as 2008, with a more competent team and stronger resume from her time as secretary of state.

Finally- we're in a situation where the economy has recovered. Like it or not unemployment is at the 5% mark and will probably be under it by election day. Oil is under $1.99 nationally and isn't likely to be significantly higher by next year. Obamacare has been implemented for years, is working, and we're already starting to see red states start looking at expanding medicaid. It's clearly working and the public is in favor of it by significant margins. Against historical trends Obama's second term has been better than his first, and Hillary is going to coast on that. Republicans are in the unenviable position of having to explain why all of the above are really BAD things- and they can't, outside of embracing Trump's quasi-racist "take america back from muslims and mexicans" narrative. And they're going to have to do that with the bench they have, which outside of Rubio (who doesn't actually seem to want the job, isn't putting the work in, and has a closet full of skeletons re: his finances and a possible mistress) that bench is COMPLETELY TOXIC.

You're telling me that given all of this, republicans have a **50-50** shot to overcome all of the above with Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Rand Paul, or Jeb Bush? Get the fuck out of here, they'd get destroyed.

 

[Republic of Ezo]

not really when looking at it from a historical perspective. The last time a Democrat won a third term was FDR/Truman in 1940.

52 was a bust. 68 was a bust. Carter did not get a second term. We know how Al Gore went.

52 wasn't really a bust all things considered. Truman was one of the most unpopular presidents in American history and Eisenhower was one of the most popular and successful generals ever. Dems had no chance once Eisenhower declared himself a Republican (and that's why they were trying to get Eisenhower to run as a Dem).

68 also wasn't a bust due to the unusual circumstance. Massive antiwar movement which forced Johnson out (remember, he could have run again in 68, but decided not to because of Gene McCarthy's strength in NH) so you lost the power of incumbency and the electorate saw the Dems in chaos (literally had the party brass BEATING McCarthy supporters in Chicago) while the GOP was unified behind Nixon. And even then it was VERY close.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Pretty much. 80% came out of my ass more or less, but democrats have a pretty definitive advantage going in. The electoral college decides who gets to be president, and to win in 2016 Republicans would have to run the table on nearly all of them, in the face of demographics that are rapidly favoring democrats. The electorate is getting younger and less white by the second- the white electorate that put GWB in office in 2000 against Gore is not enough to win this time, and they appear to have completely alienated hispanics. If Bush vs. Gore happened in today's environment, Bush would lose definitively.

We already knew the nominee was going to be Hillary a long time ago, with no serious challengers doing any kind of damage to her during a primary. That means that Hillary was clear to lay groundwork for the general and build the infrastructure she needs for a run at the general with the primaries being a technicality.

This is a hell of an advantage, even BEFORE we consider the kind of shape the GOP is in right now- splintered, dysfunctional, and turning on itself in every way possible.

Hillary herself has already been thoroughly, thoroughly vetted from her time during the Clinton administration as well as her primary run in 2008. There is literally nothing left the GOP can attack her with that the public doesn't consider old news. Conservative news cycles were full of "emails!" and "benghazi!" manufactured controversies, because they had little else- and those have run their course. There will be no october surprise, and much like the problem with Trump, negative ads aren't really effective against someone that is already THAT well known by the American public.

Hillary also has the "first woman president" working in her favor, as like it or not there will be people who normally tune out for politics paying attention for that alone, and they're going to be mostly women, which the GOP is already typically at a disadvantage with versus the democratic party. At Hillary's best, she was able to drive voters to the polls in numbers almost identical to Obama circa 2008. There is nobody- NOBODY on the GOP bench that is capable of generating that kind of support on their best day. None. Zombie Reagan could come back from the grave and run against Obama 2008 and he'd get slaughtered too. 2016 Hillary is just as capable as 2008, with a more competent team and stronger resume from her time as secretary of state.

Finally- we're in a situation where the economy has recovered. Like it or not unemployment is at the 5% mark and will probably be under it by election day. Oil is under $1.99 nationally and isn't likely to be significantly higher by next year. Obamacare has been implemented for years, is working, and we're already starting to see red states start looking at expanding medicaid. It's clearly working and the public is in favor of it by significant margins. Against historical trends Obama's second term has been better than his first, and Hillary is going to coast on that. Republicans are in the unenviable position of having to explain why all of the above are really BAD things- and they can't, outside of embracing Trump's quasi-racist "take america back from muslims and mexicans" narrative. And they're going to have to do that with the bench they have, which outside of Rubio (who doesn't actually seem to want the job, isn't putting the work in, and has a closet full of skeletons re: his finances and a possible mistress) that bench is COMPLETELY TOXIC.

You're telling me that given all of this, republicans have a **50-50** shot to overcome all of the above with Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, Donald Trump, Rand Paul, or Jeb Bush? Get the fuck out of here, they'd get destroyed.

from a democratic standpoint you are arguing from and the same is true of the opposite argument with a Republican standpoint. From an objective standpoint its 50/50.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cr...ctors-that-will-determine-the-next-president/

What follows is an exploration of 10 factors that will probably determine the White House winner next year. Some of these — many of them, in fact — suggest that the GOP should be seen as a narrow favorite. But a few factors, combined with the live possibility that the next Republican nominee will make Mitt Romney look like Ronald Reagan, indicate to us that, as we turn the page from 2015 to 2016, that the 2016 general election is still a coin flip.

 

[Manmademan]

from a democratic standpoint you are arguing from and the same is true of the opposite argument with a Republican standpoint. From an objective standpoint its 50/50.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/cr...ctors-that-will-determine-the-next-president/

this is joke tier political analysis. Should we be taking this:

One other thing: While it seems likely that nominating Trump would be a political loser for Republicans, let’s not underestimate his potential to dramatically recalibrate his pitch for a general electorate. His established proposals (and outrageous statements) would remain, but if anyone could pull off a massive rebranding job, it might be The Donald.

seriously? Trump has absolutely no chance of pulling a 180 and appealing to a general electorate. none. it's not happening. There is such a thing as a "line" and trump has long since crossed it.

 

[Teggy]

Btw, Carson has decided not to release Campaign 2.0.

 

[Manmademan]

Btw, Carson has decided not to release Campaign 2.0.

Ah, was it really so long ago that Carson was in the headlines every other day with some fresh insanity? His campaign was over far too soon.

 

[Jack Remington]

Sabato is the Skip Bayless of politics.

 

[ivysaur12]

It's also just a really lazy analysis that doesn't have much substance, and ignores a lot of the context for each of those elections.

 

[NeoXChaos]

but I like sabato though. Come on guys. You can't serious believe Trump would not get atleast 45% of the vote?

 

[ivysaur12]

but I like sabato though. Come on guys. You can't serious believe Trump would not get atleast 45% of the vote?

I do not believe, against Hillary Clinton, Trump would do better than low-40%s in a general election.

 

[Manmademan]

but I like sabato though. Come on guys. You can't serious believe Trump would not get atleast 45% of the vote?

uh..Mitt Romney only managed 47.2% in 2012. McCain had 45.7% in 2008.

Trump in 2016 would get fucking obliterated. New Swing states would sprout up like weeds. He'd be lucky to hit mid 30s.

 

[Basileus777]

It's pretty generous to Trump to assume that his baseline is 45%.

 

[Manmademan]

It's pretty generous to Trump to assume that his baseline is 45%.

generous is not the word I would use. delusional, maybe. Trump absolutely would not outperform McCain or Romney in a general election.

Trump has exactly one asset as a politician, and that's the ability to energize the racist wing of the republican party. This will absolutely not get you anywhere near 45% in a general election.

 

[B-Dubs]

uh..Mitt Romney only managed 47.2% in 2012. McCain had 45.7% in 2008.

Trump in 2016 would get fucking obliterated. New Swing states would sprout up like weeds. He'd be lucky to hit mid 30s.

I wouldn't go this far, but I also doubt he'd do better than 45% of the vote.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Trump's baseline is atleast 35% to be fair arguably 40% for cynics with a ceiling between 40-45.

None of the plain states and most of the south are not going D in a Hillary wave of 61-38.

 

[ivysaur12]

I wouldn't go this far, but I also doubt he'd do better than 45% of the vote.

He'd lose Arizona, Georgia, and possibly Montana and Indiana.

You'd have Trump at the end campaigning to keep South Carolina, Mississippi, Texas, and the Dakotas.

Trump's baseline is atleast 35% to be fair arguably 40% for cynics with a ceiling between 40-45.

None of the plain states and most of the south are not going D in a Hillary wave of 61-38.

Let's say it was 61-38. Hillary would lose:

Utah
Wyoming
Oklahoma
Idaho
Alabama
Arkansas
Kentucky (marginal)
West Virginia (marginal)

Aaaaaaaaaaaand that's it.

 

[Manmademan]

I wouldn't go this far, but I also doubt he'd do better than 45% of the vote.

Perhaps, but ask yourself this.

If Trump wouldn't be an absolute disaster in a general election, then why is the GOP establishment panicking as if his nomination is the end of the world? We have party insiders talking brokered conventions and third party candidate runs.

There was none of this talk around McCain or Romney- and the party establishment was less than thrilled with Romney, looking to replace him with people like Christie up until the last minute.

Overwhelming consensus isn't that Trump isn't just "worse" but an outright disaster for the party that will have serious down ballot consequences.