reggieandTFE
Member
Are there any great Christie Bridge-Gate threads where the 'Christie did nothing wrong' folks can be called out?
Are there any great Christie Bridge-Gate threads where the 'Christie did nothing wrong' folks can be called out?
Why stop at placing restrictions on SNAP recipients. Corporations sucking off the welfare teat should also be prohibited from holding Las Vegas conventions, dolling out bonuses and lavishing perks on executives.
It's what the good hard-working taxpayers of WI deserve.
Are there any great Christie Bridge-Gate threads where the 'Christie did nothing wrong' folks can be called out?
More like the best sitting hair on any senator.
I only cheer for one man's death and that man is tom brady
Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Wolf told the Obama administration Friday his state would move to establish its own Obamacare marketplace if the Supreme Court invalidates vital subsidies in states that rely on the federal insurance exchange.
Mr. Wolf, a Democrat, said a contingency plan is needed because hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians rely on the exchange subsidies to afford health care under the Affordable Care Act.
“My letter does not mean that Pennsylvania must set up a state-based marketplace,” Mr. Wolf said. “However, it would be irresponsible not to have a plan in place to protect 382,000 people. I look forward to working with members of the legislature to advance this plan if necessary.”
In a letter to Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Mathews Burwell, Mr. Wolf said his states would assume responsibility for the exchange while leveraging some of the “existing infrastructure” of the federal exchange.
He designated the state insurance commissioner, Teresa Miller, as the point of contact for exchange plans.
Nothing stops this train
Yeah there is, Hillary.
I need to get on it...Nothing stops this train
Nothing stops this train
Strange lack of diablosing on these recent poll numbers.New Iowa Poll!
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/...op-field-in-iowa-walker-leads-other-dems.html
Clinton 45%/Bush 42%
Clinton 48%/Carson 41%
Clinton 45%/Christie 40%
Clinton 49%/Cruz 42%
Clinton 46%/Huckabee 44%
Clinton 45%/Paul 43%
Clinton 48%/Perry 41%
Clinton 46%/Rubio 44%
Clinton 48%/ Walker 41%
Please let Walker be the nominee.
Walker's poll numbers are shit in Iowa and NC. What do the Kochs see in him?
Walker's poll numbers are shit in Iowa and NC. What do the Kochs see in him?
Every single potential swing state is a must-win for the GOP.
I'm not really sure how the GOP can win the election if they don't sweep VA, OH and FL.
Strange lack of diablosing on these recent poll numbers.
Btw how was Obamma polling against Mitt and friends in mid 2011?
Wikipedia has a good database of polls for questions like that. Here are links for 2012 and 2016.
March-May 31st, 2011 Obama v Romney:
Rasmussen Reports - Obama +5
Reuters/Ipsos - Obama +13
Suffolk University - Obama + 3
The Economist/YouGov - Obama +3
PPP - Obama +7
Washington Post-ABC - Tied
March-May 2nd, 2015 Hillary v Jeb:
Fox News - Hillary +4
Quinnipiac University - Hillary +7
CNN/ORC - Hillary +17
Public Policy Polling - Hillary +6
ABC News/Washington Post - Hillary +12
Michigan is not going to swing right dude :lol
benji sends his love:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCueO9fSDXs
He also may have mentioned that he's seen the light, and will be voting for Mike Huckabee in next year's presidential election.
Meh, probably never IMO. Hildawg is already so well known that I don't think we'll see the usual "bounces" when one candidate receives greater publicity.
So I guess polls a year and half out are generally a good indicator of who is likely to win.Wikipedia has a good database of polls for questions like that. Here are links for 2012 and 2016.
March-May 31st, 2011 Obama v Romney:
Rasmussen Reports - Obama +5
Reuters/Ipsos - Obama +13
Suffolk University - Obama + 3
The Economist/YouGov - Obama +3
PPP - Obama +7
Washington Post-ABC - Tied
March-May 2nd, 2015 Hillary v Jeb:
Fox News - Hillary +4
Quinnipiac University - Hillary +7
CNN/ORC - Hillary +17
Public Policy Polling - Hillary +6
ABC News/Washington Post - Hillary +12
So I guess polls a year and half out are generally a good indicator of who is likely to win.
But that reuters/ipsos poll tho. Mitt probably shat bricks.
I'd bet she sees more of a bump from Bill's speech than from her own. Especially if he gives a speech like the one he gave for Obama in '12. But we're polarized to the point where the era of gigantic poll bounces is gone. She might see a few points, but nothing earth-shaking.
That, and the conventions are obscenely early next year. The bounces will be long-forgotten before Labor Day arrives.
In some ways, it's almost more pure now then once we get to the point when every week there's a new thing that changes the whole race that everyone is talking about, but will be completely forgotten by the next week when there's a new shiney "game changer" to attach to.
If you want a glimpse into just how risk averse Republicans are, consider that the GOP ticket has won the White House since 1928 only when a Nixon or Bush has been on the ticket. Also note that six of the last seven nominees for the party inherited their political fame from their fathers.
Well what about debates? Remember the game changing infamous first debate between obama and romney? Romney won that first debate but the needle didnt moved much in the Obama team's polling. I wonder if a bad performance changes minds or the people who watch them generally know by then who they are gonna pull the lever for. The dynamic of early voting by then seems to dilute the influence debates used to have.
Yup. I tend to agree with this. By the time the debates arrive, a large portion of the electorate has its mind made up. People freaked-out over that first Obama-Romney debate, but it didn't change things very much at all. 538's victory probability dipped a little bit (from what I can recall), but Obama still retained a healthy edge.Well what about debates? Remember the game changing infamous first debate between obama and romney? Romney won that first debate but the needle didnt moved much in the Obama team's polling. I wonder if a bad performance changes minds or the people who watch them generally know by then who they are gonna pull the lever for. The dynamic of early voting by then seems to dilute the influence debates used to have.
The general consensus among political scientists is that debates don't matter. Take that first Obama vs. Romney debate, Obama sank in the polls for about a week before recovering to about where he was.
Campaigns themselves even, generally don't matter. The efforts of each side cancel each other out. The relative skill of each party's campaign only seems to matter once every handful of elections, where the fundamentals say it's going to be close. 1976, 2000, and 2004 are about the only ones in the past 50 years where a better campaign could've made the difference.
Yup. I tend to agree with this. By the time the debates arrive, a large portion of the electorate has its mind made up. People freaked-out over that first Obama-Romney debate, but it didn't change things very much at all. 538's victory probability dipped a little bit (from what I can recall), but Obama still retained a healthy edge.
I'm really starting to believe that defining the opponent early makes a big difference. Bush was able to label Kerry early-on. Obama was able to define Romney really early in the Summer/Spring, and it seems like it stabilized the race for the rest of the way. If Hillary's smart, she'll get on TV in Spring 2016 as soon as the GOP race is over (or maybe even once they're down to just two remaining candidates) so that she can get an early label job done on them. As soon as the nominee does anything notable to verify her paint job (Romney's 47% moment), her narrative of him is confirmed in many voters' minds and the polls resist changing dramatically. Inertia.
At least, that's my hunch. Lucky for Hillary, she's pretty well-defined.. and the GOP candidates will be too busy tearing the crap out of each other to return the favor.
If Dukakis had ran a better campaign instead getting destroyed in the later half he could have won in 1988. Other than that and the close 1960 & 1948 elections, the rest were mostly blowouts for either side so I agree.
In fact, 1988 is very relevant to this election and the model for Clinton next year. I just dont see any Republican other than possibly Bush and Rubio mounting a "better campaign" scenario that would make the difference in defeating Hillary and even then that might not be enough since campaign of yesterday are so different compared to now. Walker will be Dukakised.
Why is Santorum suddenly being... reasonable on the issues of transgender and gay marriage? At least in the sense of attending a family members wedding and saying that if Bruce says he is a woman, he is a woman.
The relative skill of each party's campaign only seems to matter once every handful of elections, where the fundamentals say it's going to be close. 1976, 2000, and 2004 are about the only ones in the past 50 years where a better campaign could've made the difference.
There's evidence that once you dig into GDP growth and all that showing Kerry actually did run closer than expected against Bush. Remember, Iraq hadn't blown up quite yet, the economy was still humming along in the shaky Potemkin way most people can't tell is false, and there were no major scandals.
Nothing stops this train
Politico says the Bmore riots may have hurt OMalley
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/...leys-already-slim-chances-117545.html?hp=r3_3
what do you say?