Jack Remington
Banned
Indeed he is. Democrats have an excellent chance of retaking the Senate. Put a gun to my head and make me predict what will happen, and I'd say they do it.
-
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 |OT2| Pls print
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
Indeed he is. Democrats have an excellent chance of retaking the Senate. Put a gun to my head and make me predict what will happen, and I'd say they do it.
Not by the same outlets though. Sure, the right wing media went through every stage of grief when Obama was reelected (they even invented a few new ones). But the mainstream consensus was that it was a clear mandate, even if he lost a few EVs compared to 2008. No serious source called it close after the fact.
Correct me if I'm wrong, though.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I believe you have posted this before, and that's why I said "maybe." I remember. You saying he was a fake.
Black Republican
Member
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...rats-not-sold-on-hillary-clinton-or-joe-biden
some focus groups from NH/IO on the dem side, not much we already dont know. They like Sanders, 50/50 on Hilary etc
some focus groups from NH/IO on the dem side, not much we already dont know. They like Sanders, 50/50 on Hilary etc
Officerrob
Banned
There is a new Quinnipiac poll that says Carson is ahead of Clinton by 9, Sanders by 10, and Biden by 5....in PENNSYLVANIA!! I don't even have to look at the details of the poll to know that's bullshit
GAF needs to stop attacking pollsters. People said the same about the WSJ/NBC ones yesterday too. We mocked Republicans for this in 2012. Follow the average. If most polls are saying something then it is pretty much a certainty that that is the current state of the election.
The public doesn't pay close attention like we do. It makes plenty of sense for Carson to be up now, that is in line with a lot of recent general election polling with him. He won't stand up under scrutiny when people start paying close attention. It that poll isn't anything to attack, that is a 2012 GOP level absurd tactic.
BertramCooper
Banned
I'm fine with the way the federal executive branch functions. Generally speaking, the elected president is a better representation of the country's desires as a whole than Congress - one chamber which is unfairly weighted in favor of small states and the other which is prone to horrible gerrymandering. Therefore, I'm good with our powerful executive system with appropriate checks from the other two branches. And I like that our system allows regulatory departments and agencies to be headed by appointed experts and not just politicians. Sure, politicians often still get nominated for Cabinet spots, but so do folks like Ernest Moniz.
The biggest issue is fixing federal elections. I'd switch Senate terms to eight years and House terms to four years, making all Congressional elections coincide with presidential elections. Everyone is voting for president every general election. Everyone is voting for one Senate race every general election. Everyone is voting for their House seat every general election.
Get rid of this midterm bullshit entirely.
Butts-a-plenty
Banned
I think there is a very noticeable difference. People here are pointing out that the polls being released right now are very unlikely to resemble the polls that will be released in October 2016 and the eventual general election results. Republicans in 2012 were criticized for questioning polls being released in the weeks leading up to the general, not so much over a year out.
I think it's perfectly valid to point out that these polls being released are unlikely to be accurate predictors of the general election at this point in time due to a myriad of reasons.
Oh I agree things will likely look much different a year from now. But calling the polls "bullshit" is not correct, the recent gen election polling is very likely an accurate representation of where the election is today.
Carson would of course beat Hillary if the election suddenly was going to be held tomorrow, most people are unaware how crazy Carson is an Hillary is still be run through the dirt with the email nonsense.
Does that mean it would happen in Nov 2016? No, but polling isn't trying to show what will happen Nov 2016. It is showing where the election is right now, and that is a representation that is fitting with recent national polling.
Saying Carson would beat Hillary in October 2015 isn't bullshit, that is pretty typical of recent poll numbers across multiple pollsters. Right now Carson has a slim lead in the aggregate overall polling over Clinton for example.
Officerrob
Banned
A slim lead in the aggregate overall polling over Clinton doesn't equate to +9 in Pennsylvania. +9 in Pennsylvania basically equals a national landslide
And_Gignac
Member
It seems another goalpost is about to fall:
California poll
Clinton 47%
Sanders 35%
with Biden
Clinton 40%
Sanders 31%
Interesting enough, Sanders is gaining with non whites, specially those who do not identify as Latinos:
Race/ethnicity
Clinton Sanders Undecided
White non-Hispanic 43% 43 14
Latino 52% 22 26
All others 50% 35 15
Things to consider:
So again, if Sanders mantains his lead with white voters, he only needs to capture a significant part of the minority vote, but he doesnt need to win over Clintons levels of support to gain the popular vote (even when I actually see him doing just that: overtaking her with minorities
). Obviously it will come down to every state and their particular racial/liberal-not so liberal make up
And well, this is California, things will most probably be decided by then, probably in Clintons favor. But if Sanders can replicate this demo math in others states and improve on that, he can become more competitive during Super Tuesday.
California poll
Clinton 47%
Sanders 35%
with Biden
Clinton 40%
Sanders 31%
Interesting enough, Sanders is gaining with non whites, specially those who do not identify as Latinos:
Race/ethnicity
Clinton Sanders Undecided
White non-Hispanic 43% 43 14
Latino 52% 22 26
All others 50% 35 15
Things to consider:
So again, if Sanders mantains his lead with white voters, he only needs to capture a significant part of the minority vote, but he doesnt need to win over Clintons levels of support to gain the popular vote (even when I actually see him doing just that: overtaking her with minorities
). Obviously it will come down to every state and their particular racial/liberal-not so liberal make upAnd well, this is California, things will most probably be decided by then, probably in Clintons favor. But if Sanders can replicate this demo math in others states and improve on that, he can become more competitive during Super Tuesday.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
This discussion of checks and balances and Clinton is pretty silly, and Meta's outrage is pretty much nonsense.
The article is saying, in effect, that given the "Constitutional Crisis" we need a President willing to work outside of norms. While I don't buy the "crisis" aspect of our current political landscape, I buy that premise entirely. When we have had one party willing to run roughshod over norms and leverage procedural rules for 6 years, then yes, we need a President willing to use the same tactics.
I think casting it as lawlessness or breaking the rules is hyperbole or disingenuousness.
The article is saying, in effect, that given the "Constitutional Crisis" we need a President willing to work outside of norms. While I don't buy the "crisis" aspect of our current political landscape, I buy that premise entirely. When we have had one party willing to run roughshod over norms and leverage procedural rules for 6 years, then yes, we need a President willing to use the same tactics.
I think casting it as lawlessness or breaking the rules is hyperbole or disingenuousness.
My first thought was, "Finally, something is happening on the Democratic side!"
My second thought is what does this actually mean. The LA Times article linked in the Politico article gave something more on that front.
My second thought is what does this actually mean. The LA Times article linked in the Politico article gave something more on that front.
Yellowtail
Member
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
Just three more and he'll tie Rubio in endorsements.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Rubio would be a lame president, but holy shit, he and wife are gorgeous. That's the only area where the Rubios would match the Obamas.
Also, being a GOP leader blows:
Also, being a GOP leader blows:
Hillary's Quinnipiac and NBC/Marist numbers from the past two days look absolutely dreadful. I know Biden's numbers are artificially inflated because he's not a candidate, but he doesn't have the email scandal and Hillary's unlikeability to sink his numbers as low if he does get in. Frankly Hillary needs to consider dropping out if she doesn't turn things around. It's too big of a risk, and an unnecessary risk for her to possibly lose Iowa and New Hampshire, get the nomination late and hobble on as a candidate who underperforms the generic Democrat.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
I would prefer a country where "conservative" isn't self defined as "how much hate of people that aren't white men do you have in your heart"
I don't think the political climates of those elections were the same, though. As divisive as they've worked to make Obamacare, re-electing Bush at the height of the Iraq War said something far different than re-electing Obama.
There's also the fact that EV's don't make any real difference in regards to popular sentiment.
Aaron Strife
Banned
http://fair.org/take-action/media-advisories/when-is-a-mandate-not-a-mandate/
USA Today headline 2004: “Clear Mandate Will Boost Bush’s Authority, Reach"
USA Today headline 2012: "A Nation Moving Further Apart"
NPR's Renee Montaigne, 2004: "By any definition, I think you'd call this a mandate."
NPR headline, 2012: "For Obama, Vindication, But Not a Mandate"
The article doesn't pick out a lot of choice quotes from 2004, but there's plenty from 2012 and enough that I would definitely question the "mainstream consensus" being that Obama had a mandate. The media fucking changed the rules because a black Democrat won as opposed to a white Southern boy. You could tell they were hoping for a big Obama loss so they could write about 2008 being this brief aberration of unchecked optimism that would require a Republican to fix, so when he won by a decisive margin they had to spin it into a negative somehow.
The biggest difference between Bush 04 and Obama 12 is that Bush at least won the House but that's entirely due to gerrymandering. Both for Democrats losing in 2012 (they would have won a majority if the lines were the same as in 2010) and Republicans gaining seats in 2004 (Texas redrew their map to be a GOP gerrymander mid-decade, if they hadn't done that Democrats actually would have picked up four seats overall).
Ignore EVs then. Bush won 50.7% of the popular vote in his re-election, Obama won 51.1%. Remember also that Bush had huge support for the Iraqi War initially due to 9/11 basically allowing him to do whatever he wanted foreign policy-wise with the nation's support while the economy was pretty okay at that time, and he still won by a smaller margin than Obama did with a shitty economy and his biggest achievement (Obamacare) being maybe a wash.Fuchsdh said:
If Hillary wins, I want to see headlines like "Hillary Seizes Power" and "Hillary Takes the Throne."
===
And those polls.. seems like the various pollsters' models are all over the place regarding what they think the electorate will look like in 2016. Look at the crosstabs of each sample and draw your own conclusions.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
In 2004, a lot in the media fully bought into thinking they have to support the president in a time of war. Outside of that, they've mostly bought into presenting both sides as equal at all cost ever since the 90s when Fox News launched their network on the notion that the media has a liberal bias.
We probably won't see the clear conservative bias again like we saw in the media between 2002-2005.
We probably won't see the clear conservative bias again like we saw in the media between 2002-2005.
Coriolanus
Banned
Isnt that one of his son's?
thatsthejoke.jpg
(I want a TV commercial where the Rubio household runs out of diapers and they have to go next-door to the Vitter household to borrow one. Upon returning, the mother finds Baby Marco waiting for her..)
Aaron Strife
Banned
Not to enter the unskewniverse but Quinnipiac's most recent PA poll has Republicans outnumbering Democrats by 4 points, something that has never happened in Pennsylvania in the past twenty years either in presidential or midterm elections.
So I mean good luck with that.
Cheebo warned you Aaron. Don't unskew like Republicans in 2012.
PhoenixDark
Banned
I wouldn't mind Mrs. Rubio being my first lady.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
These Quinn polls continue to show massive swings on a monthly basis. Last release Rubio and Bush had 10+ leads now they're +1 in Florida. They now also show Dems doing way better in Florida while losing Pennsylvania. How?
I've written about these roller coaster swings from Quinn before. In 2012 it was Romney +1 then Obama +7 then suddenly Romney +2 again.
I've written about these roller coaster swings from Quinn before. In 2012 it was Romney +1 then Obama +7 then suddenly Romney +2 again.
Rubio was apparently heckled during an event this week by a guy who accused him of cheating on his wife..
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news...tery-during-campaign-ev/#.VhQhDFScY6k.twitter
I wouldn't doubt if he were a plant, but it makes me wonder what kind of oppo research they'd find on him..
Yea, if you're seeing wild swings like that in every poll, without a giant scandal or event in between to explain it, then there's probably something wrong with the methodology. We should be able to explain any large, 10 point or so, swing in poll numbers quite easily as they don't just happen for no reason.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Unskewing isn't "this poll looks funky." Unskewing is "This poll has Hillary down 5, but unskew it and she's actually up by 10!"
I don't think there's anything wrong with calling out shit polls and pollsters when appropriate.
Coriolanus
Banned
Except for, yknow, falling prey to confirmation bias and to the backfire effect.
Just go with the average. If it's a shit poll, it'll become irrelevant in due time.
Just go with the average. If it's a shit poll, it'll become irrelevant in due time.
Speaking of which:
Trump still owning
Fiorina done
Huckabee done
Christie done
Paul done
I stand corrected, that's pretty shitty.
The shit polls do affect the average though, which is why guys like Wang and Silver assign each poll a weight and alter how much it affects their averages. For example, almost every poll on the GOP race has Trump up by like 10 but there was one that had him up by 1 and one that had Carson up by 7. This results in Trump only being up by 6 on average, despite all the other polls having him up by 8 or more.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Trash polls matter. Someone has to call out this stuff out like Silver used to call out Zogby for his shenanigans. If you're showing 9 or more point swings in the span of one month with no reason around it, you gotta explain that.
Speaking of which when are Wang and Silver going to start tracking this shit so we can stop fretting over individual poll demographics?
Curious to see how the reaction is here if both show the GOP candidate leading when things start going. Both showed the GOP taking back the senate in 2014 and I am pretty sure no one here questioned that at the time here if I recall correctly.
Curious to see how the reaction is here if both show the GOP candidate leading when things start going. Both showed the GOP taking back the senate in 2014 and I am pretty sure no one here questioned that at the time here if I recall correctly.
Exactly.
Who knows, all I know is it can't happen soon enough. The current aggregates are just annoying as hell because they assign the same weight to legit polls and trash polls, which messes with the whole purpose.
Who knows. I still feel like it's too early to be taking polls on the general though. I just feel like those numbers won't have much weight until after the first Dem debate at the earliest.
Black Mamba
Member
I have explained twice now why this is wrong.
Again, this isn't a knock against any particular pollster. I don't think any pollster can accurately poll the current state of the general election because the only people answering pollsters right now are motivated primary voters and those are more likely to be Republicans right now due to how interesting their primary is and how inevitable Hillary's is.
I will repeat what I said yesterday. Ignore general election polling right now. They're not accurate sample sets due to lack of proper randomization. It's just the nature of things right now.
Bachman was beating Obama 4 years ago at this point. Bush was destroying Gore. Chait had a good article today about how Hillary 2012 looks like Gore 2000 with Bradley in the Sanders role with almost similar headlines and polling. But Gore won every primary and he did win the general election with less favorable demographics and the lowest turnout we'll probably see in a long time.
until the Primary season is essentially over, the general election polls are 100% completely meaningless. From every single pollster. The national polling will be more accurate than the state by state polling due to its very nature (larger poll to find the right voters) but it's still garbage.
Once again. Ignore general election polling this early. It is inaccurate.
They won't matter until at least Super Tuesday passes. The only people paying attention to the Dem Debate are Dem Primary voters.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
No Ben Carson? He's smashing Dems in GE polling.
That's because he doesn't see the GLORY of TRUMP's LUXURIOUS and CLASSY campaign.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked