• 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 |OT| Keep Calm and Diablos On

Status
Not open for further replies.
I figured Rubio wouldn't delve into the swamp on the 14th amendment. Guessing Bush won't either. What an amazing turn of events though....lord knows this will be a "raise your hand" question at the next debate.
 
It's not a question of it only being about racism. It's a question of whether it is, itself, a racist policy that is abhorrent to people of color, which it is. I don't think it's really debatable, frankly, but here's Paul Waldman making the same point: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blog...6-election-by-raising-birthright-citizenship/

European and Australian politics are themselves heavily driven by xenophobia and racism, so it's not surprising that the argument is successful there.

It is not racist on its face. It applies the same to a pregnant Swedish woman overstaying her visa and giving birth as much as it does to a Honduran immigrant coming across the border and giving birth. Nearly half the illegal immigrants are people that flew into the country legally and then just stayed.

I promise you that next fall, there are going to be ads like this running all over the country, and especially on Spanish-language media:
“My name is Lisa Hernandez. I was born in California, grew up there. I was valedictorian of my high school class, graduated from Yale, and now I’m in medical school; I’m going to be a pediatrician. But now Scott Walker and the Republicans say that because my mom is undocumented, that I’m not a real American and I shouldn’t be a citizen. I’m living the American Dream, but they want to take it away from me and people like me. Well I’ve got a message for you, Governor Walker. I’m every bit as American as your children. This country isn’t about who your parents were, it’s about everybody having a chance to work hard, achieve, and contribute to our future. It seems like some people forgot that.”​

Except that example makes no sense. Lisa already is a US citizen. It would just stop future such Lisas. They couldn't make such a commercial until 20 years from now.
 

pigeon

Banned
It is not racist on its face. It applies the same to a pregnant Swedish woman overstaying her visa and giving birth as much as it does to a Honduran immigrant coming across the border and giving birth. Nearly half the illegal immigrants are people that flew into the country legally and then just stayed.

Sure? I mean, the fact that the policy affects white illegal immigrants does not make it not a racist policy. The purpose of ending birthright citizenship is to force children of immigrants (legal or illegal) out of the United States and thus to make it harder to get your children into America.

Saying this isn't a racist policy is a lot
like saying that poll taxes aren't a racist policy. Sure, stripped of all context, they're just bad ideas. In context, they are bad ideas motivated by xenophobia and racism, which have disproportionate racial effects. America has a very long history of immigration restrictions driven by racism.
 
I'd be very interested in seeing birthright citizenship polled. I wouldn't be surprised at all if at least 45% of the country agrees with Trump.

The damage this will do is solely with Hispanics IMO, which in of itself threatens a republican's chances of winning. I doubt white voters are too opposed to it.
 
I'd be very interested in seeing birthright citizenship polled. I wouldn't be surprised at all if at least 45% of the country agrees with Donald "Because I don't want to, Greta" Trump.

The damage this will do is solely with Hispanics IMO, which in of itself threatens a republican's chances of winning. I doubt white voters are too opposed to it.

I want to know what Bobby Jindal thinks of the policy. ;-)
 
It depends on how the question is phrased. I think a lot of people (like me) got their citizenship that way but aren't that aware of it. I'd be interested to see some stats on how many people are citizens on birthright and what countries their parents came from.

I want to know what Bobby Jindal thinks of the policy. ;-)
Oh you know:
@BobbyJindal: We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.
 
Oh don't be so sure. Unions are often very big proponents of immigration limits. And there is the 'last over the gangplank effect' wherein often recent legal immigrants are against more immigrants coming in.

It is not just a racist thing. It is also rooted in law & order, protectionism, . . . even some environmentalists view it as bad policy because it allow populations to expand quicker than they should.

Ignore this issue at your peril. It has certainly pushed European and Australian politics further right. And as Trump has shown, it is quite popular here too.

Unions and the afl-cio are some of the biggest supporters of immigration reform. The wikipedia cites things from the turn of the century. Next your going to say theyre racist because they weren't interested 60+ years ago
 
Seriously, let's look at the ideas that seem to be the most popular now amongst candidates:

-End birthright citizenship
-Build a wall to stop illegal immigration
-Abortion ban with no exceptions
-Bring back torture
-Defund planned parenthood
-Repeal and replace Obamacare with race to the state with the lowest regulations
-Constitutional amendment to overturn the Supreme Court decision allowing same sex Marriage

You forgot ground troops in Iraq and Syria, forcing Iran to do what we want via magic and then bombing them anyway.

I'm not entirely sure I understand how Walker plans to cover those with pre existing conditions without mandates. It sounds like wishful thinking to me.

Also subsidies based on age and not income is so fucking terrible.

Does it matter? The GOP plan is to simply repeal Obamacare and go to the previous system. They'll describe the problem of a lack of plans after the repeal as Democrats not working with them.

These "plans" put forward by guys like Walker and Rubio and everyone else aren't plans. They're general statements, often with contradictory goals, that are worthless. They don't want to do anything but go back to the pre-ACA system. That's their game. Nothing else. All these "plans" are just made up bullshit they have no real intention on passing which is why they don't have to make sense.

Law passes.
Things go haywire because of pre-existing conditions.
GOP Congress says screw it and votes to strike down those regulation, and we're right back to where we were before ACA.

Exactly what they're intending to happen.



You give me 1 hour to be a "reporter" with any one of these hacks and allow me to ask any health care related question I want and I would single handedly destroy every one of their candidacies. Except maybe Trump because let's face it, he's Trump.
 

FyreWulff

Member
4tHt3Mm.gif

Maybe show him how to get water for the rest of the kids, Marco.

ranch house style

that ugly beigebrown suburb standard house color

manicured grass

people maintaining a 4 foot bubble of space around each other

the only way for this picture to get whiter is for everyone to be holding a glass of pumpkin spice coffee
 
Unions and the afl-cio are some of the biggest supporters of immigration reform. The wikipedia cites things from the turn of the century. Next your going to say theyre racist because they weren't interested 60+ years ago

"Immigration reform" is a very ambiguous statement. Trump's plan is 'immigration reform'.
Yeah, Unions like immigration reform that will get rid of the low pay illegal immigrant labor market that pushes down wages. Thus they like things like the wall. Getting rid of birthright citizenship reduces the desire to be in the USA illegally to have kids since they don't then get US citizenship automatically.
 
Oh you know:

@BobbyJindal: We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Ah . . . he's threading that needle. But it leaves huge loopholes. So all you need is a tourist visa, student visa(*cough*HisParents*cough*), temp work visa, etc. and then you are a legal immigrant so you get to drop an American?

That seems also to be racist policy since we have VERY different Visa requirements depending on where you are coming from.
 
@BobbyJindal: We need to end birthright citizenship for illegal immigrants.

Ah . . . he's threading that needle. But it leaves huge loopholes. So all you need is a tourist visa, student visa(*cough*HisParents*cough*), temp work visa, etc. and then you are a legal immigrant so you get to drop an American?

That seems also to be racist policy since we have VERY different Visa requirements depending on where you are coming from.

It is a very slender distinction. Half of all illegals came to the country legally but then over-stayed their visas. So citizenship would depend on when the baby is born, or conceived if you're pro-life I guess.
 
T

thepotatoman

Unconfirmed Member
I wonder if all those damning Trump for his favorables will do the same with Bush now that his have tanked.


And this is pretty interesting data. I wonder how much of this translates to Trump gaining supporters when other candidates drop out.

Good question. He's at the top of second choice list too.

If polls like this one keep coming out, no one can deny his spot as the current favorite. It's amazing how every single reason people say Trump is going to fail keeps getting thrown out the window.

If we continue seeing these results, the only argument left will be that a lot of people aren't paying attention yet.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Texas Agriculture Commissioner

The corruption involved is probably much worse than this ghung ho nonsense.

Oh no doubt, but shit like this definitely serves as a water mark for stupidity and likely corruption. If I was a Texas DA and I saw this shit, I'd start taking a look at this guy just on the basis that if he's a big enough idiot to post this then he must be doing something.
 
The GOP field reacted to Walker’s proposal cautiously, with only Jindal offering a statement.

He blasted Walker’s proposal, arguing that he is merely setting up a new entitlement program to replace ObamaCare.

“Governor Walker endorsed the fundamental underpinning of Obamacare – the notion that America needs another entitlement program,” Jindal said. “It is frankly shocking that a Republican candidate for President would author a cradle to grave plan like this.”

LOL.

Scott Walker, Entitlement Republican.


The clown show is amazing.
 
I don't think we should be hand-waving away the birthright citizenship issue with claims of racism (unless the argument is that it's not the idea itself but why/how it's being brought up). A majority of countries don't adhere to it; I can't imagine that we would argue that every country without it is being racist by refusing to enact it.


Just because a policy diminishes or impedes immigration does not automatically make it racist. Motivations to do so sure can be (and in the context of this election that appears to be in play), but they need not be. Immigration has to be limited in some form, you can't just give everyone in the third world the freedom to move to the first world. Wanting to increase or decrease the limiter is not necessarily racist.
 

RDreamer

Member
Scott Walker: Iran deal like leaving sons unattended with girls


Gov. Scott Walker is comparing the nuclear inspection agreements in the Iran deal to leaving teenaged boys unattended with girls.

"I've got two boys in college now, but when they were in high school, we used to have a rule that they could have friends over, including girls, as long as the door to their room was open," Walker told conservative radio host Simon Conway on Wednesday.

Basically, he seemed to be saying that Iran should have less advance notice before nuclear inspections.

"To me, the provisions in this deal are like telling teenage boys not only can you have the door closed, but we gotta shout up the stairs before we walk up the steps, 'Hey, we're coming up to check and see what you're doing, I just want to give you advance notice,'" Walker said. "It makes no sense."

He's repeatedly said that, if elected, he would end the Iran deal on Day 1 of his presidency.

"You wouldn't do it as a parent, we certainly shouldn't be doing it with the leading sponsor, the leading country when it comes to state-sponsored terrorism," Walker said.


Found that through this opinion article on why Walker's an idiot for that comment

When Walker makes the girl-in-his-teenage-son's-bedroom analogy, he's talking about the part of the Iran deal that covers inspections of Iran's nuclear sites. He's seized on an anti-deal talking point that is, to put to mildly, stupendously wrong, which is that any inspection of Iran's nuclear sites will take place 24 days after they're announced. This is the, "Hey, you kids, I'm coming up the stairs!" part of Walker's analogy. "Okay, I'm putting my foot on the first step!"

But if he were honest about what the Iran deal actually says, he would have placed himself in the room with his son and the girl. That's because "under the accord, all of Iran's known or declared nuclear sites are under permanent and constant surveillance." One source refers to "satellite coverage, live camera feeds, radio identification, tamper seals" in those sites all the time. There's no 24-day waiting period there.

In fact, there's no mention of "24 days" at all in the agreement; that's simply the maximum sum of days in an appeals process should Iran want to deny inspectors immediate access to some new site, after which the crippling sanctions – the ones that led to Iran's capitulation in this deal in the first place – go back into effect.

In Walker's analogy, it would be like thinking there's a girl behind the closed door that he is presently knocking on, and if the door doesn't open right now, the kid's grounded for the next five years. I don't know any teenage boys who would take that deal, but apparently Iran did.


Stupid analogy is stupid.
 
"Immigration reform" is a very ambiguous statement. Trump's plan is 'immigration reform'.
Yeah, Unions like immigration reform that will get rid of the low pay illegal immigrant labor market that pushes down wages. Thus they like things like the wall. Getting rid of birthright citizenship reduces the desire to be in the USA illegally to have kids since they don't then get US citizenship automatically.

Um, no.

You're talking out of your ass

http://www.aflcio.org/About/Exec-Co...-Naturalize-and-Mobilize-for-Just-Immigration
The labor movement has long fought to correct the imbalance of power within our immigration system in order to build an economy that works for working people. The Marshall Plan, labor’s historic framework of 2009, sets out our principles and priorities for comprehensive immigration reform, including a broad and inclusive pathway to citizenship for our undocumented brothers and sisters; humane and rational systems of border control and workplace verification; and structural reforms to our employment-based visa system to prevent indentured work and base future entry levels on the real needs of the labor market. These carefully balanced components promote a rights-driven approach that respects the hardships and contributions of those living here as well as those moving here, and prevents our immigration system from being used to lower wages for all working people in our country.

Our commitment to enacting these principles is fierce and unwavering. They ensure that workers’ issues will not get lost within the halls of Congress or within the broad coalition advancing immigration reform. We have always known that this would be a long and arduous fight, and the labor movement brings clarity, vision and leadership at this critical juncture. We know that it is no longer a question of if justice will come for immigrant workers, but when. The fight for immigrant rights is not a campaign, it is a movement, and movements keep moving despite setbacks and obstacles. The AFL-CIO will continue to lean in to this struggle as an integral part of our long term strategy to build power for workers.

First and foremost, we will organize. Like it was for generations of immigrants before, the labor movement is the natural home for new immigrants struggling to achieve economic security and win social justice. Our unions are investing heavily in organizing immigrant workers in industries and states with high union density, as well as in new frontiers. To be effective in this core work, we must demand changes to our legal enforcement mechanisms that will help to eliminate existing barriers to organizing. We see all too often the damage that is done when immigration enforcement occurs in the midst of an organizing drive, a bargaining campaign, or a concerted job action. We demand that the Obama administration use its authority to explicitly protect immigrant workers who assert their rights on the job and to prevent immigration enforcement actions from being used as a tool to deny workers their legal right to organize. We also firmly assert the need to maintain a firewall between local law enforcement and federal immigration enforcement, and to focus workplace audits on employer behavior, rather than individual workers. Empowering workers with a voice on the job is critical to enforcing basic labor standards, and no one should have to risk deportation simply for exercising their workplace rights.

Next, we will help workers build power in the community by naturalizing new citizens. Already, local unions, labor councils and state federations around the country are conducting citizenship drives in their union halls and partnering with progressive community organizations to enfranchise immigrant voters. Obstacles to naturalization function as voter suppression against communities of color, much like voter identification and strict voter registration laws, so we will do everything we can to help broaden the base of working people able to take part in the electoral process. In addition, unions are prepared to help immigrants gain work authorization by applying for deferred action, and any other forms of relief that become available.

Finally, we will mobilize. The electorate is changing quickly, and the labor movement is committed to investing in a robust voter engagement strategy to help to unlock the power of the Latino and immigrant vote. This effort will include a strong Spanish language field and messaging program that makes clear what is at stake in these elections for working people. Racist and anti-worker politicians who scapegoat and demonize immigrants and unions have no place in our halls of power, and they can expect to hear from our members in the streets and at the polls. Comprehensive immigration reform is a core piece of the raising wages agenda, and we will insist that all candidates who seek the support of the labor movement commit to making real changes to our broken system. Workers are no longer willing to accept the status quo, and they have positioned the immigration issue where it is today: as one of the most important civil, political and economic issues facing our nation.

Richard Trumpka

Thank you, Juan [Salgado], for that truly generous introduction, and let me just say that nobody, nobody, has electrified America like the DREAMers have. You inspire me. I’m humbled and honored to stand with you. I admire your courage, and I want you to know that I’ll stand with you, along with the whole of the AFL-CIO. We’ll stand with you whenever you need us. And we’re honored that you stand with us. Thank you again. Let’s hear it for the DREAMers!

Right now, today, the United States of America has 11 million aspiring citizens who rent or own homes, who raise families and buy groceries, who work hard, who pay taxes, and do their fair share right here in Chicago, and in thousands of cities and towns all across this country—but who live here as second-class citizens, and something has to be done about it!

You know, and I know, most big employers couldn’t be happier with the way things are. They’ve got access to a hard-working, insecure, and underpaid pool of workers. And if those workers make any noise, any at all, about forming a union on the job, or trying to build a better life, those employers are only too happy to prove that deportation is only a phone call away.

That’s wrong. That’s not American. It hurts all of us. It weakens us as a nation. It lowers wage standards for all of us. And we won’t stand for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pqY5DaAFuvI
 

RDreamer

Member
Walker is self-imploding like I and b-dubs said about Christie. Absolutely amazing. Hilldawg is going to have it easy.

If Walker somehow gets the nomination by the grace of the strange god that talks to him and the ghost of dead Reagan, Hillary's going to have one fun as fuck foreign policy debate!
 
I don't think we should be hand-waving away the birthright citizenship issue with claims of racism (unless the argument is that it's not the idea itself but why/how it's being brought up). A majority of countries don't adhere to it; I can't imagine that we would argue that every country without it is being racist by refusing to enact it.



Just because a policy diminishes or impedes immigration does not automatically make it racist. Motivations to do so sure can be (and in the context of this election that appears to be in play), but they need not be. Immigration has to be limited in some form, you can't just give everyone in the third world the freedom to move to the first world. Wanting to increase or decrease the limiter is not necessarily racist.

The push to abolish it is very often racist or more accurately xenophobic, the reason those countries don't have it is often due to ethnic nationalism not something we should aspire to.
 

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
It is a very slender distinction. Half of all illegals came to the country legally but then over-stayed their visas. So citizenship would depend on when the baby is born, or conceived if you're pro-life I guess.

Hmmm don't you generally get 90 days of legally remaining in the US on entry? Which I guess would make an anchor baby "legal" if they were born in the US during that period because their mother wouldn't be illegal at the point of birth regardless of what happened later?

I'm sure there are a number of different grey area scenarios.
 
I'm not going into an actual prediction this election cycle for the GOP nominees. The whole thing is a giant clusterfuck that I think any number of guys have a shot to come out (trump, bush, Walker, rubio, Kasich, and maybe Cruz).

The ones I'm sure can't come out are those in the kiddie debate, Rand, Huckabee, Carson, and Christie.

But I've always felt Walker is the most likely to be this year's Rick Perry. On paper, he should be the best guy for the GOP to rally behind. Super conservative, lots of money behind him, GOP elite can get behind him, should appeal to the base, etc. But he has the "derp" factor all over his face. And no charisma at all.

For contrast, a lot of people thought George W Bush was dumb too. But it was different. He still went to Harvard, even if it was daddy funded. He still owned a baseball team. He was the guy who was more like a regular joe who partied but through good fortune (read: connections) and some wits managed to survive in the higher stratus. He didn't have the 'derp" factor. He seemed "dumb" for an elite person.

Scott Walker is both derp and anti-cool and people can sense that. I mean, I still think he can win because of the clusterfuck, but I always believed his candidacy had just as much a chance to be short-lived as it was to make it out.


To give an example. I feel like if I talked to George W or Jeb! or Kasich or Trump 1 on 1 in a private setting, I think we could have a legit conversation about politics. I'd probably think they're very wrong on many points and shit, but we could have that conversation. On the other hand, I quite honestly believe if Walker was there with me, he would be not understand most of the things I'm saying to him. It would be confusing. I'm fairly certain he's just not bright at all.

People can sub-consciously pick up on these things.
 

HylianTom

Banned
Walker is self-imploding like I and b-dubs said about Christie. Absolutely amazing. Hilldawg is going to have it easy.

At this point, the Donald is leading the GOP down a kinda dark path on an electorally significant issue. The position of "repeal the 14th's birthright" has been floated around in conservative circles before this cycle, but his advancing of the position almost cements it as a checkbox that the Republican base is going to really enjoy.

I wonder what issue he's going to lead them on next.
 

pigeon

Banned
I don't think we should be hand-waving away the birthright citizenship issue with claims of racism (unless the argument is that it's not the idea itself but why/how it's being brought up). A majority of countries don't adhere to it; I can't imagine that we would argue that every country without it is being racist by refusing to enact it.

You could probably make a case, but it's not necessary. There's a difference between not wanting to enact birthright citizenship in a country that has never had it and wanting to get rid of birthright citizenship in a country that has always had it. I am happy to assume for now that people who don't want to add birthright citizenship are just being conservative in not wanting to modify established law without a clear reason to. But that's not a defense for people who want to actively remove it.

Just because a policy diminishes or impedes immigration does not automatically make it racist. Motivations to do so sure can be (and in the context of this election that appears to be in play), but they need not be. Immigration has to be limited in some form, you can't just give everyone in the third world the freedom to move to the first world.

Why not?

Seriously, what's the justification for immigation restriction? It's not economic. It's been well-established for years that immigration adds to GDP.

vox said:
Even the studies by the most immigration-skeptical economists show that immigration raises the incomes of native-born Americans on average.

Don't take my word for it. Ask George Borjas, who tends to be far and away the leading economist in the immigration-skeptical camp. He says the current level of immigrant workers in the United States raises US GDP by about $1.6 trillion relative to where it would be in a zero-immigration universe.

But he cautions (emphasis added):

Of the $1.6 trillion increase in GDP, 97.8 percent goes to the immigrants themselves in the form of wages and benefits; the remainder constitutes the "immigration surplus" — the benefit accruing to the native-born population, including both workers, owners of firms, and other users of the services provided by immigrants.

Wow — 97.8 percent! That sure sounds like a high number.

But the key thing about it is that 97.8 percent is less than 100 percent. Which is to say that immigrants — unlike, say, thieves — are not imposing any net costs on the native-born. In fact, while drastically raising their own income they are slightly raising everyone else's income. And that's according to an economist who thinks high levels of immigration are bad public policy. Other studies by more immigration-friendly economists see considerably larger gains to the native-born. But the whole argument is about how big the net economic benefits to the native-born are, not whether they exist.

http://www.vox.com/2015/8/17/9164725/immigration-and-wages-impact

It's actually a simple economic deadweight issue. People who aren't able to maximize their productivity in one place move to another place where they can maximize it. By doing so they get richer and so does everybody else (because people who are underproducing make society poorer). We don't have any problem with it when people move from Missouri to California.

So if the issue isn't economic, what's the justification?
 
Just because a policy diminishes or impedes immigration does not automatically make it racist. Motivations to do so sure can be (and in the context of this election that appears to be in play), but they need not be. Immigration has to be limited in some form, you can't just give everyone in the third world the freedom to move to the first world. Wanting to increase or decrease the limiter is not necessarily racist.

Why not?
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
If Walker somehow gets the nomination by the grace of the strange god that talks to him and the ghost of dead Reagan, Hillary's going to have one fun as fuck foreign policy debate!

No. No. NO. Just the off-chance he'd get the presidency would be WAY too much.
 
You could probably make a case, but it's not necessary. There's a difference between not wanting to enact birthright citizenship in a country that has never had it and wanting to get rid of birthright citizenship in a country that has always had it. I am happy to assume for now that people who don't want to add birthright citizenship are just being conservative in not wanting to modify established law without a clear reason to. But that's not a defense for people who want to actively remove it.



Why not?

Seriously, what's the justification for immigation restriction? It's not economic. It's been well-established for years that immigration adds to GDP.



http://www.vox.com/2015/8/17/9164725/immigration-and-wages-impact

It's actually a simple economic deadweight issue. People who aren't able to maximize their productivity in one place move to another place where they can maximize it. By doing so they get richer and so does everybody else (because people who are underproducing make society poorer). We don't have any problem with it when people move from Missouri to California.

So if the issue isn't economic, what's the justification?

Or when its money.
 

NeoXChaos

Member
natesilver: My concern, if I’m Reince Priebus, isn’t necessarily that Ted Cruz or Donald Trump is going to win the nomination. It’s that an establishment candidate eventually does, but it gets ugly.

micah: What does “ugly” look like?

natesilver: OK, let’s posit three degrees of ugliness.

An actual brokered convention.
The nomination is decided before the convention, but there’s genuine uncertainty about who the nominee will be after the last primaries.
No candidate has technically clinched the nomination as of the date of the last primary, but the writing’s on the wall.
hjenten-heynawl: (If there’s a brokered convention, I’ll eat dinner in Brooklyn for a month.)

micah: [Editor’s note: Harry hates Brooklyn.]

natesilver: Harry, what chance would you assign to each of those outcomes?

hjenten-heynawl:

5 percent
10 percent
25 percent

natesilver: So, we do have some disagreement. I think the chances are about twice that at each stage.

hjenten-heynawl: So you think we head into June 2016, and there’s still a centipede running around with its head chopped off?

micah: That’s a … metaphor. A chicken?

natesilver: I’d say there’s a 20 or 25 percent chance that there’s genuine doubt about the identity of the nominee in June. Yeah. But it’s category Nos. 1 and 2 that I’d be concerned about. Where, in essence, the party hasn’t been able to reach consensus until it gets in to the smoke-filled rooms.

micah: And how does that hurt the GOP? It makes it harder to rally behind the eventual nominee?

natesilver: First of all, if you look at the correlation between the share of the primary vote that the nominee gets and how the party does in the general election, it’s pretty strong. Though it could absolutely be a correlation without a causation. But I don’t think it should just be brushed off as an empirical finding.

hjenten-heynawl: It’s very strong.

natesilver: But if you reach the stage where there’s genuine doubt about the identity of the nominee in June, it means that some major constituencies within the Republican Party are going to feel dealt out of the process. And also, you have less time for the sort of healing that parties usually get in June, July, etc. Probably some big fights at the convention, which if nothing else harms the GOP’s ability to control the message.

micah: And I think the chances of that happening — whether 20 percent or 5 percent — are unusually high this year.

natesilver: Yeah, I figure the baseline probability is 10 percent or something, if you had enough of a sample size. So it’s got to be considerably higher than that.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/roundtable-is-the-republican-establishment-losing-control-of-the-party/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom