Support NeoGAF

[PhoenixDark]

Nate truly is mirroring ESPN nonsense. He's at his weakest when he has no data (i.e. good polls) to rely on; in the past he readily admitted this and avoided talking. Now he's pulling numbers out his emotional ass like a pundit.

In terms of Trump I don't believe he'd lose some historic election against Hillary. I think 43% or so would be his floor. The country is simply too polarized, Hillary is too disliked by many republicans, and enough voters are likely to lie about their support of Trump for me to believe he'd do far worse than McCain. Also given his easy it is to pull off a small scale terrorist attack here I think Trump would continue to benefit from fear mongering with many voters.

 

[Abinash117]

I'm probably on the pessimistic side of the spectrum here in PoliGAF (about margin - not outcome). I could see Trump getting 45%, and suspect that there are a lot of voters out there who are comfortable overlooking/rationalizing his more controversial/vile comments. It also doesn't help that he'd have an pretty polarizing opponent motivating voters from his own party.

I would say he would get less than 45%. The voting participation for whites might drop again like the the last elections. With his rhetoric he already turned off minorities having any chances of voting for him, so there's a chance that some republican Latinos and others might not show up and vote. This is mostly primaries voters paying attention right now once the general happens I suspect democrats and leaners being fully against him, including a quite of few republicans and independents.

Also I bet Hillary has much better and developed campaign that can reach many people around the nation; Trump doesn't have that and would have to start to build a better ground campaign. Additionally, Trump won't have the full backing of the republican party as many hate his guts, especially the establishment ones. That'll hurt coordination. His bombastic comments will only go so far in the general and moderating will be too late . I say Trump would get around the high 30s or something like 40% or 41%. Hillary is a much stronger with having a more developed campaign and by being a democrat. Trump is too much of a blowhard and too divisive to have a inclusive coalition of voters.

 

[Tarkus]

'You know, they say all men are created equal, but you look at me and you look at Marco Rubio, and you can see that statement is not true! See, normally if you go one-on-one with another senator, you got a 50-50 chance of winnin'. But I'm a genetic freak, and I'm not normal, so you got a 25% at best at beatin' me! And then you add Ted Cruz to the mix? Your chances of winnin' drasticly go down. See the three-way, in the New Hampshire Primary, you got a 33 1/3 chance of wiinnin'. But I, I got a 66 2/3 chance of winning, cause Marco Rubio KNOWS he can't beat me, and he's not even gonna try! So, Marco Rubio, you take your 33 1/3 chance, minus my 25 percent chance, and you got an 8 1/3 chance of winnin' at New Hampshire! But then you take my 75 perchance chance at winnin', if we was to go one-on-one, and to add 66 2/3 chance percents, I got a 141 2/3 chance of winnin the GOP Primary!'

Scott Steiner?? Noice.

 

[HylianTom]

I would say he would get less than 45%. The voting participation for whites might drop again like the the last elections. With his rhetoric he already turned off minorities having any chances of voting for him, so there's a chance that some republican Latinos and others might not show up and vote. This is mostly primaries voters paying attention right now once the general happens I suspect democrats and leaners being fully against him, including a quite of few republicans and independents.

Also I bet Hillary has much better and developed campaign that can reach many people around the nation; Trump doesn't have that and would have to start to build a better ground campaign. Additionally, Trump won't have the full backing of the republican party as many hate his guts, especially the establishment ones. That'll hurt coordination. His bombastic comments will only go so far in the general and moderating will be too late .

You're right - I completely forgot about his lack of organization outside of what he has in early states. Not even an Orca-tier effort (*pause for laughter*). That's always good for a point or two.

If the GOP establishment decides that they'd prefer a Hillary win, I'm going to enjoy watching them tap-dance through this next year.


{edit: actually, we're looking at a very real possibility that - with the exception of maybe Cruz - the GOP nominee won't have a very robust GOTV operation. Owwwch.}

 

[Manmademan]

I would say he would get less than 45%. The voting participation for whites might drop again like the the last elections. With his rhetoric he already turned off minorities having any chances of voting for him, so there's a chance that some republican Latinos and others might not show up and vote. This is mostly primaries voters paying attention right now once the general happens I suspect democrats and leaners being fully against him, including a quite of few republicans and independents.

This is a certainty. 45% is what McCain threw up against Obama in 2008- and you have 8 years of demographic shifts to account for. Trump isn't going to be matching this, especially because..

You're right - I completely forgot about his lack of organization outside of what he has in early states. Not even an Orca-tier effort (*pause for laughter*). That's always good for a point or two.

If the GOP establishment decides that they'd prefer a Hillary win, I'm going to enjoy watching them tap-dance through this next year.

of this. Trump doesn't have the infrastructure to run a national campaign. it simply doesn't exist- the GOP establishment views him as a disaster, and there are many prominent party insiders that are vocal about simply not supporting his candidacy should he win the nomination. They'll focus on down ballot candidates in the senate and the house, but will run far away from any association with Trump himself to limit collateral damage.

45% simply is not attainable in this situation. Rubio might be able to pull it off, or Cruz if a miracle occurs, but it's out of reach for Trump.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

45% simply is not attainable in this situation. Rubio might be able to pull it off, or Cruz if a miracle occurs, but it's out of reach for Trump.

The idea that 45% in a two party race would be a good result for Cruz is completely wrong IMO. Yes Democrats will benefit from some demographic changes since '08 but remember that year the economy was falling apart and people were completely exhausted by Bushes incompetence in Iraq and with Katrina. Unless we get explosive economic growth next year any non-Trump candidate will get closer to Romney's 47%. Rubio has a decent chance of winning especially if we see more terrorism from ISIS or a recession.

 

[metalslimer]

The only thing that comes from seeing the percentage of Trump would get would just be realizing the percentage of the voters that are terrible. Regardless EC wise it's going to be a blowout

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You guys are pulling numbers out of your asses.

My gut says the dems have an advantage but all these numbers lol, and your the ones blasting Nate or Sabato?

 

[ivysaur12]

You guys are pulling numbers out of your asses.

My gut says the dems have an advantage but all these numbers lol, and your the ones blasting Nate or Sabato?

Sure, but so are Nate and Sabato. It's all arm chair punditry. They're just paid for it.

 

[User 406]

You guys are pulling numbers out of your asses.

My gut says the dems have an advantage but all these numbers lol, and your the ones blasting Nate or Sabato?

Self-Hating-PunditGAF OT

 

[FloydtheFathead]

'You know, they say all men are created equal, but you look at me and you look at Marco Rubio, and you can see that statement is not true! See, normally if you go one-on-one with another senator, you got a 50-50 chance of winnin'. But I'm a genetic freak, and I'm not normal, so you got a 25% at best at beatin' me! And then you add Ted Cruz to the mix? Your chances of winnin' drasticly go down. See the three-way, in the New Hampshire Primary, you got a 33 1/3 chance of wiinnin'. But I, I got a 66 2/3 chance of winning, cause Marco Rubio KNOWS he can't beat me, and he's not even gonna try! So, Marco Rubio, you take your 33 1/3 chance, minus my 25 percent chance, and you got an 8 1/3 chance of winnin' at New Hampshire! But then you take my 75 perchance chance at winnin', if we was to go one-on-one, and to add 66 2/3 chance percents, I got a 141 2/3 chance of winnin the GOP Primary!'

The fact that Scott Steiner has a degree in Mathmatics from Michigan still boggles my mind

 

[Aaron Strife]

The Democrats have an 87% chance of winning, compared to the Republicans whose odds of winning are only 42%

 

[ivysaur12]

The Democrats have an 87% chance of winning, compared to the Republicans whose odds of winning are only 42%

Checks out.

EDIT: Lolololol

 

[Makai]

You guys are pulling numbers out of your asses.

My gut says the dems have an advantage but all these numbers lol, and your the ones blasting Nate or Sabato?

Yeah, there are other factors at play here such as how the economy performs in 2016, discontent with an outgoing incumbent, etc. Those outside factors are so powerful it makes sense for Nate to estimate near 50/50.

 

[User1608]

I think Trump would be buried next year. Ted Cruz is certainly fucked as well. I'm not good at math so I'm definitely pulling numbers and predictions out of my ass.

'You know, they say all men are created equal, but you look at me and you look at Marco Rubio, and you can see that statement is not true! See, normally if you go one-on-one with another senator, you got a 50-50 chance of winnin'. But I'm a genetic freak, and I'm not normal, so you got a 25% at best at beatin' me! And then you add Ted Cruz to the mix? Your chances of winnin' drasticly go down. See the three-way, in the New Hampshire Primary, you got a 33 1/3 chance of wiinnin'. But I, I got a 66 2/3 chance of winning, cause Marco Rubio KNOWS he can't beat me, and he's not even gonna try! So, Marco Rubio, you take your 33 1/3 chance, minus my 25 percent chance, and you got an 8 1/3 chance of winnin' at New Hampshire! But then you take my 75 perchance chance at winnin', if we was to go one-on-one, and to add 66 2/3 chance percents, I got a 141 2/3 chance of winnin the GOP Primary!'

Wrasslin' in Poligaf? Beautiful! Steiner was so unintentionally entertaining. FREAK!

 

[RastaMentality]

So what's our top 5 (10 if need be) campaign moments of the year? CNN just did theirs and I believe the Trump Muslim ban was #1.

 

[Retromelon]

Poligaf 2016 |OT2| - Republicans have about a 20% shot at the WH in 2016. It could actually be lower. It Almost Isn't Fair

So what's our top 5 (10 if need be) campaign moments of the year? CNN just did theirs and I believe the Trump Muslim ban was #1.

#1 - Rand Paul hero music debate moment

 

[Makai]

So what's our top 5 (10 if need be) campaign moments of the year? CNN just did theirs and I believe the Trump Muslim ban was #1.

1. "Media is smearing me. I definitely attacked my mother with a hammer."
2. "Would you like to respond?" "No."
3. "It was my first day."
4. "Very high energy tonight. I like that."
5. Rand hero music

 

[ivysaur12]

re: Cook PVI, Georgia, Clinton at 61% etc.

Georgia is the type of state that can vote for a Democrat in a 10%+ blowout. That would be unlikely to happen in a normal situation, but Trump isn't normal, and I think Clinton can beat him by 10% nationally. So I think she can carry Georgia. But it would just be a symbolic win and she would have little to no coattails. As in, her victory in Georgia would have little effect on the downballot, where Republicans will still dominate. Compared to a state like North Carolina or Virginia, where Clinton winning would have coattails and would help Democrats downballot.

Also it would be very interesting to see where Clinton ends up campaigning if she were winning nationally by 10%. She'd probably end up campaigning for competitive Senate and House races, like in Pennsylvania, Ohio, New Hampshire, Missouri... North Carolina?

As for Cook PVI, it's a neat unit of measurement, but it's dangerous to apply a uniform swing and say "according to the Cook PVI, if the Democratic candidate wins nationally by x%, they will win this state". Like according to Cook PVI, Kentucky is more Republican than South Carolina. But this is because South Carolina has a much larger African-American population, and Kentucky is blue collar, white working class, coal miners. But Clinton has more appeal to white voters in Kentucky than she does in South Carolina, so I would say she has a higher chance of carrying Kentucky than she would South Carolina, even though it it is more Republican according to Cook PVI.

You're right about the PVI, so let's talk about elasticity:

Given the relative elasticity of Montana and Arizona, you'd probably see them go Blue in a wave year compared to Georgia or Indiana. In fact, given the relatively small amount of voters and its elasticity, swinging Alaska would be much easier than a Mississippi even though MS is Bluer.

I do love the idea of having to send Trump or Hillary to Alaska to campaign. Make it so!

(This also makes JBE's win in LA that much more impressive)

 

[theprodigy]

lol at New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota being considered swing states

 

[Makai]

You guys are pulling numbers out of your asses.

My gut says the dems have an advantage but all these numbers lol, and your the ones blasting Nate or Sabato?

Actually, I just read this Sabato article.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/trumps-biggest-obstacle/

He says we should trust the lesser-known polls like Winthrop over well-known news-sponsored polls like CNN. I know Nate has the opposite opinion. Sabato says the major polls are unreliable because they look at registered voters, not liklely voters. Most of Trump's supporters won't turn out for him and the lower numbers of the unknown polls sound more realistic.

...except Trump does great with likley primary voters. I just constrained the Reuters data to filter likely Republican primary voters and he drops all the way down from 39% to 37%

 

[ivysaur12]

lol at New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota being considered swing states

It's from 2012, and NM's PVI was closer to Even. NM and MI are both D+4, and WI and MN are both D+2.

 

[User 406]

You're right about the PVI, so let's talk about elasticity:

Pennsylvania a swing state? wat

 

[dramatis]

You can't let the Republicans know that Pennsylvania isn't a swing state

 

[Holmes]

Pennsylvania a swing state? wat

It depends on the state's PVI. In 2012 I believe it was D+2 or D+1, just slightly more Democratic than the national average. So it is technically a swing state. It's just that Democrats perform well in the popular vote that it's always just out of reach for Republicans. It's fools gold. Sort of like North Carolina for Democrats in 2012. Close but there was never a real shot there.

 

[thepotatoman]

Pennsylvania a swing state? wat

It might be if just going just by partisan lean and ignoring elasticity. For instance, Obama did better in Iowa than Pennsylvania in 2012.

The thing that doesn't make Pennsylvania a swing state is its inelasticity, which is partly the point of the graph.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Yeah, there are other factors at play here such as how the economy performs in 2016, discontent with an outgoing incumbent, etc. Those outside factors are so powerful it makes sense for Nate to estimate near 50/50.

I think a year out its fair to say 50-50 when we don't know the nominee. There'll be two choices.

 

[Manmademan]

It depends on the state's PVI. In 2012 I believe it was D+2 or D+1, just slightly more Democratic than the national average. So it is technically a swing state. It's just that Democrats perform well in the popular vote that it's always just out of reach for Republicans. It's fools gold. Sort of like North Carolina for Democrats in 2012. Close but there was never a real shot there.

There's a million more democrats in PA than republicans, and a statistically insignificant number of independents due to closed primaries.

It's not a swing state at all. The democrats here just ignore midterm and off year elections.

 

[Basileus777]

Pennsylvania a swing state? wat

It's also silly to call NJ "lean dem" when no Republicans have been competitive there in a Presidential election since the 80s when the state was 80% white.

 

[thepotatoman]

I think a year out its fair to say 50-50 when we don't know the nominee. There'll be two choices.

I think there's enough information to say which one has an advantage, but the problem is humans suck at feeling out odds.

50%-50% makes easy since, but something like 60%-40% is often treated the same as 80%-20% when it's really a lot closer to 50%-50% than people tend to admit. That's why a lot of video games actually lie about your percentage chances, and people get so upset when they keep missing with odds that are actually accurate like in XCom.

 

[Manmademan]

I think a year out its fair to say 50-50 when we don't know the nominee. There'll be two choices.

Just because there are two options doesn't mean the odds of victory are evenly split between them.

There are three democratic candidates, but only insane people think that Omalley and Clinton have equal chance of victory.

Candidate funding, electoral votes, and campaign infrastructure (among lots of other things) matter. It won't be a coin flip.

 

[Holmes]

There's a million more democrats in PA than republicans, and a statistically insignificant number of independents due to closed primaries.

It's not a swing state at all. The democrats here just ignore midterm and off year elections.

I said it's "technically a swing state", I didn't say it's competitive, especially with the Philly burbs trending D.

 

[Teggy]

Found Daniel's car (although he claims not to have one)

 

[User 406]

Found Daniel's car (although he claims not to have one)

There is paint not covered by a Bernie sticker, not DanielB-'s car.

 

[SL128]

1. "Media is smearing me. I definitely attacked my mother with a hammer."
2. "Would you like to respond?" "No."
3. "It was my first day."
4. "Very high energy tonight. I like that."
5. Rand hero music

Plus an honorable mention to the Fox Debate loyalty pledge. When Trump's the nominee, I think it will retroactively become tied for #1.

 

[Jack Remington]

I think a year out its fair to say 50-50 when we don't know the nominee. There'll be two choices.

The issue is that the two Republicans most likely to get the nomination right now are Trump and Cruz, and neither has any shot in a general election unless something completely unpredictable happens, like another Great Depression or Hillary being indicted next October.

With Carson still hanging around, 3 out of their top 4 are unelectable.

This drags their odds down considerably below 50-50.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Cruz and Carson are doing well in polls against her.

 

[Cerium]

Cruz and Carson are doing well in polls against her.

Herman Cain was doing well in polls against Obama around this time in 2011.

 

[Daniel B·]

Found Daniel's car (although he claims not to have one)

There is paint not covered by a Bernie sticker, not DanielB-'s car.

LOL. Still no car, and my next one, when I can no longer hike to the supermarket (circa 2040 ), will perhaps be a compact EV (cost may well put me off). I actually sometimes walk past a Tesla S, on my organic eggs trek (cheaper at Family Lion supermarket), and I am dying to ask the owner how they like it.

I see that sticker's in Elizabeth country (MA), so I would have hoped, you had seen a few more. They are as rare as hen's teeth, in my neck of the woods (there is one in a nearby street), but a sure sign that Bernie has this in the bag, is that I haven't seen a single Hillary one yet (I did get my first friendly toot (from a passing motorist), too, the other day) .

What will hopefully have an actual impact, in my mid-sized town, is that we've got the go ahead to open our Bernie storefront, and I've offered to live in the office, on the weekends, as long as I can post on GAF, of course (actually, without a decent broadband connection, I think I would go a little stir crazy, plus, obviously handy to keep up-to-date on campaign etc) .

 

[Cerium]

Electric vehicles? I thought you didn't believe in climate change. Why not roll like your compatriots?

 

[Manmademan]

Cruz and Carson are doing well in polls against her.

General election polls this far out aren't meaningful. Things tend to change when both candidates are actively campaigning against each other. That hasn't happened yet.

 

[Daniel B·]

Electric vehicles? I thought you didn't believe in climate change. Why not roll like your compatriots?

Yeah, what about that?

After further investigation, and thought, I came to the conclusion that the goals of the climate change movement are in line with my own, and move us away from highly detrimental fossil fuel extraction (e.g. the mountain top removals (for coal) in West Virginia, for the love of God (and I'm not even religious), which isn't even economical, without subsidies, and the entirely avoidable (they had several signs of a gas buildup, but screw it, "profit" is all we care about, never mind the decimated marine life and the thousands that lost their livelihood) BP oil spill...). As long as there is no talk of holding back developing countries, in the name of climate change, I'm on board.

 

[Plumbob]

So assuming Cruz wins Iowa...what next? Will he be able to convert that win into momentum for NH and other states?

 

[Cerium]

So assuming Cruz wins Iowa...what next? Will he be able to convert that win into momentum for NH and other states?

New Hampshire? No.

Other states? Maybe.

 

[Jack Remington]

So assuming Cruz wins Iowa...what next? Will he be able to convert that win into momentum for NH and other states?

Possibly. He just needs to keep finishing ahead of Rubio.

If Cruz puts up a strong early showing, that basically guarantees that the nominee will be him or Trump. At which point Hillary can start measuring the White House drapes.

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

So assuming Cruz wins Iowa...what next? Will he be able to convert that win into momentum for NH and other states?

It depends on how other candidates do. If Cruz wins Iowa, but Trump is close behind, and beats him in other states, then it probably won't change the momentum very much.

It also depends, somewhat, on the narrative the media chooses to run with, so it's hard to say. I think what Cruz is hoping for is that he can parlay an Iowa win into a media narrative that he is splitting the difference between the Republican establishment and the populist demagogic outsiders, and capturing the best of both worlds, because that might convince some less committed Trump or Rubio voters to switch over to him. Either that, or he's hoping to do well enough that Trump takes him on as his VP candidate, which he can parlay into future electoral success when that ticket inevitably loses.

 

[Retromelon]

I would love for ted cruz to be the william jennings bryan or adlai stevenson of the 21st century. He's such an artful bullshitter

 

[Daniel B·]

Those who are still saying, "Hillary's always had this" (the nomination), simply don't comprehend the depth of support Bernie has, or that he can build on.

Kristen Cosgrove, who has a bachelor's degree in business, nine year old daughter even asked if she could donate her birthday money to Bernie's campaign, and after educating herself on Bernie's plans, this is Kristen's personal account, of how she is truly #FeelingTheBern (she now manages a Facebook page for the campaign):

 

[Cerium]

Daniel B how much money have you put on Bernie on Predictit again?

 

[Holmes]

Hopefully Hillary can count on Kristen Cosgrove's vote in the general come November 8th.