PhoenixDark
Banned
well
-
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
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
well
Sounds bad ass. Is there an American Idol style call in to vote at the end?
"Who won tonight's debate? Remember calls from landlines count as triple votes."
Seeing it actually written down on paper...wow...
PantherLotus
Professional Schmuck
how can anyone not read that in his voice?
not the greatest orator to say the least.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
I don't buy that. In real terms, the change from (say) 40 to 80 is more dramatic and significant than the change from (say) 1 to 10. The fact that the former represents an increase of 100% and the latter of 900% is immaterial. Can you imagine the 40 from the former group criticizing the 9 from the latter because 10 is so much greater than 1 than 80 is 40? (It's late--does that sentence make sense?)
Of course, the numbers you presented are nowhere near as one-sided as my hypothetical, and the swings among Democrats and Republicans are actually pretty close to each other in reality (though I suspect the swing would look even worse for Democrats if shown in terms of the number of individuals, since--unless I'm mistaken--Democrats outnumber Republicans somewhat). But I still think it's noteworthy that the swing among Democrats is greater than that among Republicans, especially given how unique the Republican aversion to Obama is supposed to be.
Dominican Power
Member
Donald Trump and Ben Carson are leading the polls for The Republican party. How can America not be the laughing stock of the world right now?
Looking in from the outside, it's hard sometimes to work out whether to laugh or be afraid.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Probably because "billionaire real estate mogul" and "neurosurgeon" sound pretty good in general. And we're lucky when Americans pay attention to the specifics of American politics.
EDIT: OK, so "billionaire real estate mogul" actually sounds kind of evil in general. Maybe "successful businessman"? "TV star"?
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
That's Partisan Hackery in one chart. Both ways. That's...not...good.
Further proof to what I was saying earlier. Policy does not matter.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
If that chart holds true, 2016 is actually about New Hampshire and Pennsylvania, since Virginia is too far gone.
Hard to believe Virginia swung that far left in 4 years, but maybe they just really like Hillary.
Black Mamba
Member
The context matters. The rule of thumb is go with percentage change unless there's a good reason not to. I'm not arguing it's always the right thing.
But this isn't one of those situations. And there's a whole myriad of situations you could measure to make one side looks slightly worse than the other. Whether you look at the chart as "agree" or "disagree" alone changes everything Or what you do with the "not sure" that isn't listed (the poll officially has it at a significant number!). And of course, we don't have a control set (a question that just asks about universal care and nothing about who says it).
Personally, I think it's pretty stupid to take the "excess" like you did and make anything out of it (especially given the nearly 5% MoE and total difference of 8 percentage point!). The actual important thing to take from the graph is both sides are very partisan on this question.
Now, there's this graph that is explicitly one sided.
(if you're wondering, the Dems change by 2 percentage points, statistically no change at all)
And this:
(again, Dems change is no change).
So there's partisan hackery rampant by both sides on Health Care, but only one side on SS and Iran.
Recognizing up front that "excess Democratic hackery" is tongue-in-cheek, I think the bigger interpretive issue here is what you take to be the non-hack response. You probably don't want to look at this and conclude something about "40% of Democrats" because you're only possibly testing something about 80% of Democrats, right? You're excluding the 20% of Democrats who even disagree with Obama on UHC (assuming they're all also disagreeing with Trump too). You don't know whether they're hacks or not - maybe they'd support UHC if you told them someone else supported it. Maybe the story here is that about half of Democrats who support UHC will reject it if you tell them Trump supports it. But maybe that's backwards. Maybe the story is that 66% of Democrats who don't support UHC will support it if you tell them Obama supports it. Likewise for the Republicans, maybe it's that a small fraction of Republicans who don't support UHC will support it if you tell them Trump supports it, or maybe it's that more than half of Republicans who do support UHC won't support it if you tie it to Obama.
But one thing you definitely don't get to conclude here is that Democrats hate Trump more than Republicans hate Obama. That depends on taking 40% Republican support for UHC-by-Trump as their non-hack response so that their hatred of Obama causes them to give a hack response. In that case something like Mamba's approach makes sense - you're only testing the Obama-hatred of that 40% of Republicans who support UHC, and it turns out that more than half of them hate Obama enough to give a hack response, whereas only about half of Democrats who support UHC hate Trump enough to give a hack response. To illustrate the point better, suppose you did this experiment for "forcing everyone to get gay married". Presumably most Democrats are for that, but maybe some number turn against it when they hear that it's Trump's plan to keep Catholic immigrants away. No Republicans change their mind on the issue when they hear that Obama's for it, so more Democrats change their answer, but that's only because no Republicans endorsed the policy even when tied to Trump. That tells you nothing about how much Republicans hate Obama. And not to spend too much time analyzing a joke, but obviously the particular issue also matters such that you can't back out "degree of hate" from one question like this.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
What about the Obamacare vs ACA polling. You just put his name on the exact same thing and it shows large swings in support.
I mean, I'm not arguing that that isn't basically partisan hackery. My point was that even if your model is that this sort of change in response is entirely driven by hackery (obviously things are probably much more complicated than this) the degree of hackery you find is going to depend on which response you take to be the non-hack response. I think it's pretty reasonable to take responses to neutral descriptions of the ACA as the non-hack response such that you're seeing Obama-hate when "Obamacare" polls worse (although one of the ways that things are more complicated than this is that people will have heard things about "Obamacare" regardless of their opinion of Obama) . And so what you'd want to say is that the percentage of supporters of the ACA who change their answer when you call it "Obamacare" is a measure of Obama-hate.
But it's much less obvious which is the non-hack response when your two questions are just "Trump likes X, do you like X?" and "Obama likes X, do you like X?"
Black Mamba
Member
In fairness, anything with a "nice title" ala "affordable care act" will get a boost over anything that isn't.
It's why bills are termed "no child left behind." If Trump's wall was coined "protect american borders act" it would poll better than "Border Wall with Mexico Act," no matter what.
That's not to say that attaching Obama's name doesn't have an effect, it does. Only that it's hard to get the "true" measure of partisan hackery due to omitted variable bias.
benjipwns
Banned
An exception, the Violence Against Women Act.
I can't believe Congress keeps passing that. It's despicable.
My job is *full* of this.
I have hate crime champions.
We run prostitution training.
We have domestic violence specialists.
We deliver gang violence training.
Occasionally somebody remembers how our job titles and work is literally the opposite of what we do, freaks out a bit, and then carefully forgets our casual abuse of the language...
I always get a chuckle whenever Safeway's doing one of their charity drives and the credit card machine has the screen pop up that says something along the lines of "Would you like to donate $1 to Prostate Cancer?"
No, I think cancer's doing just fine without my help, thanks.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
May be something worth monitoring: Jeb's favorability ratings have fucking tanked with regard to Hispanics: From +15 in July to -3 now. May just be noise, but worth monitoring after that anchor babies comment.
http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1144a51ClintonTrumpBushBiden.pdf
Trump has a -1 with whites, -66 with black people, and -67 with Hispanics. Hillary has a -31 with white people, a +49 with black people, and a +41 with Hispanics.
http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/1144a51ClintonTrumpBushBiden.pdf
Trump has a -1 with whites, -66 with black people, and -67 with Hispanics. Hillary has a -31 with white people, a +49 with black people, and a +41 with Hispanics.
That's Partisan Hackery in one chart. Both ways. That's...not...good.
I think if asked this question personally, I'd be kind of confused about it. First, because I saw Trump at the debate literally go back against the idea of single payer healthcare. That combined with the fact that Republicans like Orwellian words, I could see him or another Republican praising "universal healthcare" but not meaning the same thing that a democrat might. Kind of like how Walker's policy paper said his plan would cover pre-existing conditions, but in reality it was more wishful thinking.
So I'm not entirely sure how I would answer that.
Indeed. Plus healthcare is tricky because Republicans have played with the various positive terms before, while at the same time undermining the details like preexisting coverage and whatnot. So I can see there being more suspicion as to the honesty of Republicans' positions on healthcare than Democarts'. Whether well founded or not.
Trump is softening so many people. Good. Even if Jeb is the nominee, he has been bloodied and bruised already. Ouch.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
That's awesome, it means they'll double down on mistakes.
I'd rather the GOP adopt a better platform, but I've given up hope of that.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
All you guys panicing for years! Hyping up AIPAC as a force that can't be stopped on the hill, etc.
I maintained this position forever.
Also lol
Neocons are mad they lost out on another war
Check out @EliLake's Tweet: https://twitter.com/EliLake/status/639093420938686465?s=09
PhoenixDark
Banned
I hope they filibuster it instead of giving Obama the opportunity to veto it. What better way to kill this disrespectful, childish GOP/Israeli game than cancel it outright.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Yeah, I have no problem believing someone might like Obama's idea of universal healthcare but not trusting Trump's idea (or vice-versa). But I'm still willing to chalk a lot of it up to stupidity.
Agreed. It would be the perfect way to give the Senate GOP a taste of their own medicine which they have relished in dishing out over the past 7 years.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Bu-bu- Democrats are just as bad!
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I would agree with this.
I got similar questions from a poster that included them saying a republican candidate for governor was for all sorts of school reforms that sounded really great, but I didn't feel comfortable saying I approved of it until I could look into the details of it. The questions asked about the Democrat governor I was able to say I approved because I knew what those were about, and maybe there was more willingness to take them at face value when you know you're coming from similar core beliefs about things like believing the free market isn't the answer to everything.
Maybe disapproval would be a better metric for partisanship of things like this, since it's reasonable to go from approve to don't know if you don't yet know enough details about the other side's plan.
Retromelon
Member
I am so entertained by this. Im imagining he just got a deep nostril full of a john kerry gasser
Another example with wording: When Paul Ryan said he wanted to "save medicare" it was quite different from if a Democrat would say that. If you were asked a poll question on agreeing with Paul Ryan or a Democrat on saving medicare that would mean completely different things.
I have to say it feels nice to be in a state where the electoral outcome is much more up in the air. I'd still vote regardless since it would matter at the state and local level but it's more exciting for the national races.
Also there's a little bit of "Who the hell cares about Iowa, we matter more than them, dammit" East-Coast elitism thrown in, I guess.
Also there's a little bit of "Who the hell cares about Iowa, we matter more than them, dammit" East-Coast elitism thrown in, I guess.
Iran is 90% of the way to a stink bomb
So a few weeks ago I managed to snag two tickets to the Late Show with Steven Colbert, they're for the 10th. I've had no idea who the guests would be until now, and while I am not really a country music fan there is one guest that should be a barrel of laughs: Joe Biden. So that's gonna be pretty fun, right?
You lucky, lucky.. %#^£!
Watch.. Biden's gonna announce his intentions there, get the Colbert Bump, and we're all going to be sitting here in PoliGAF, mouths agape, while you're going nuts in the audience..
The fact I could possibly see that happen live and wouldn't be able to tell you guys about it until it actually airs that night might kill me.
RustyNails
Member
I really dont know whats worse, right wing people blaming all the world problems on Obama in the OT or people crawling out of the woodwork saying Mad Max Fury Road was boring/shit.
Some guy posted a source that shows Obama has ideological ties to Iran.
Edit: Bdubs I dont know why I quoted you man. Tell the Colbert he needs to join neogaf
Pretty sure he's made the best out of everything thus far. Incredible PR pressure on democrats and the president all while fear mongering in his own country and winning the election more or less. He knew from Day One that the agreement was passing.
j_k_redtail
Member
My suspicion has been that there are swaths of the GOP electorate that have not accepted the fact that minorities actually do vote.
Obama won just 39% of white voters in 2012. Thirty-nine. A few decades ago that would have meant a landslide victory for Mitt Romney. If you live in a blood-red, homogeneously white part of the country, it's possible that you don't know anyone who actually supported Obama's campaign.
Black Mamba
Member
There's no way he'd announce on Colbert unless it's leaked earlier. They'd have no way from stopping the audience from leaking it.
You're not the media. It's not like you are put in a position to sign a promise not to put our your movie review til X date.
I know I know, but you know Biden. There's always that possibility he lets it slip out by accident.
Black Mamba
Member
Sure, it could. But in that case, you could let us know. It won't matter much, someone in the media will ASAP.
I'm just saying I don't think you have to worry about holding it in for 5 hours.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
AM I UNDER ARREST?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked