Support NeoGAF

[Abinash117]

Jeb is going stay with the low numbers unless he changes his strategy a lot even then that probably wouldn't work, since one of the reasons is that there's a lot of anti-establishment feelings from the Republicans. He might stay around 8-3% for a long time.

If he does drop out he'll endorse Marco because between him and Marco, they might cannibalize each other in the primaries when they already have low support.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Jeb!'s favorability numbers continue to tank in that poll, he's done.

Kasich remains at 2%.

According to Nate Silver, Rubio (8% in this poll at 4th) has a 35% chance of being the nominee, Jeb (6%, tied for 6th) has a 20% chance and Kasich (all the way down at 2%) has a 15% chance.

That moment when you realize Nate Silver is sort of overrated.

 

[Makai]

According to Nate Silver, Rubio (8% in this poll at 4th) has a 35% chance of being the nominee, Jeb (6%, tied for 6th) has a 20% chance and Kasich (all the way down at 2%) has a 15% chance.

That moment when you realize Nate Silver is sort of overrated.

Nate's not dumb. The problem is that it's possible to predict the outcome when you're a couple of months out from the election, but people assume he knows what's going to happen over a year out.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Nate's not dumb. The problem is that it's possible to predict the outcome when you're a couple of months out from the election, but people assume he knows what's going to happen over a year out.

It's just strange to see someone predicting "these guys that are despised by most Republicans and have shit poll numbers, Jeb and Kasich, have a 35% chance of winning the nomination."

That just seems odd.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Nate's not dumb. The problem is that it's possible to predict the outcome when you're a couple of months out from the election, but people assume he knows what's going to happen over a year out.

I think Nate's problem is that without polling to analyze he's about as useless as any other pundit. Trump has held the lead for a stubborn amount of time but the media keeps insisting he'll drop any day now. I'm not a Trumpistan by any means but the way he's been treated by the media is kind of unfair.

I mean. His candidacy is a joke. But the entire GOP is a joke.

Furthermore Kasich has a 15% chance of winning? How does anyone come to that conclusion other than "hurr the establishment always gets their way"? The only people who've been praising Kasich's candidacy are Democrats. If there's a GOP candidate who has a 54% with me on isidewith.com then I'm going to go out on a limb and say they're unsuited to the current primary electorate.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I think Nate's problem is that without polling to analyze he's about as useless as any other pundit. Trump has held the lead for a stubborn amount of time but the media keeps insisting he'll drop any day now. I'm not a Trumpistan by any means but the way he's been treated by the media is kind of unfair.

I mean. His candidacy is a joke. But the entire GOP is a joke.

Furthermore Kasich has a 15% chance of winning? How does anyone come to that conclusion other than "hurr the establishment always gets their way"? The only people who've been praising Kasich's candidacy are Democrats. If there's a GOP nominee who has a 54% with me on isidewith.com then I'm going to go out on a limb and say they're unsuited to the current electorate.

Nates not any good until he has many numbers and its close to the election. So basically ignore him till Convention time next year.

 

[Makai]

It's just strange to see someone predicting "these guys that are despised by most Republicans and have shit poll numbers, Jeb and Kasich, have a 35% chance of winning the nomination."

That just seems odd.

He puts a lot of stock into indirect metrics like favorability. I can't blame him because there's no objective measure to go off of at this point. People are hungry for answers and his website exists to give them something. The continued backpedaling on Trump is very embarrassing, though.

 

[Y2Kev]

Nate's freaking right. Trump/Carson/Fiorina are not going to get the nomination. It's going to be either Bush or Rubio so I think that he is right in terms of odds.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

When has the establishment not gotten their way?

Fiorina being the candidate isn't an example of the outsiders winning. She is the embodiment of establishment from what I can tell.

 

[NeoXChaos]

When has the establishment not gotten their way?

Fiorina being the candidate isn't an example of the outsiders winning. She is the embodiment of establishment from what I can tell.

Goldwater.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Goldwater.

But they knew that election was unwinnable so they just let it happen.

 

[Roland_Gunner]

When has the establishment not gotten their way?

Fiorina being the candidate isn't an example of the outsiders winning. She is the embodiment of establishment from what I can tell.

When have none of the establishment candidates polled under 10%? With the rise of outside campaign money and social media the system has lost a ton of power.

 

[Tarkus]

Nate's freaking right. Trump/Carson/Fiorina are not going to get the nomination. It's going to be either Bush or Rubio so I think that he is right in terms of odds.

You're as wrong here as you were about The Last Guardian.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

We've had five consecutive polls showing Clinton at or near +20 with Biden included. If the debates don't go Sanders way what will his supporters point to as being the event that changes everything?

Maybe the Benghazi committee can do the work for them.

 

[RustyNails]

This election does not have any precedent. We thought the anti-establishment hysteria on the right was at fever pitch in 2012 with "anyone but Romney" hopes for the conservatives. They rode the Santorum bus till the bitter end. In the end, they came home to Romney tent, only to be massively disappointed. This time the electorate does not want to give in.

The house is a microcosm of the mood of the Republicans across the country. Take a look at it very carefully. They achieved the coup of their lifetime with Boehner resignation followed by another establishment defeat in the form of McCarthy. The same thing is going to repeat in the election booths.

 

[Abinash117]

Nate's freaking right. Trump/Carson/Fiorina are not going to get the nomination. It's going to be either Bush or Rubio so I think that he is right in terms of odds.

I think the establishment will try to get rid of them. But if they can't in time of the primaries and the Trump and Ben still has a huge lead in support what will happen? What might happen is that tons of voters will vote for the outsiders by a lot, but the delegates will mostly go to other establishments if that is possible, but that's if the rules change somehow.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

I think Rubio wins in the end, but let's be real here, Kasich and Jeb are terrible candidates that no one in the party likes.

There's a huge logical leap from "An Establishment candidate usually wins" "Kasich and Jeb are part of the establishment." to "Jeb or Kasich have a good chance of winning!" Jeb has zero positives to his candidacy other than his money and his money will have been taken by Rubio by next month. Jeb's polling sucks, his favorables suck, his general election chances suck, he has no personality, he's a terrible speaker, he's a stupid man, and he's an elitist. There is no chance Jeb wins this nomination.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Jeb will be fine.

 

[ItWasMeantToBe19]

Nate Silver defines Bobby Jindal as part of the establishment and I would guess that Jindal has as good of odds of winning the nomination as Kasich.

 

[Makai]

I'm surprised by the constant anti-Sanders sentiment. What gives?

 

[Makai]

I donated to Sanders when he announced, but I didn't expect him to break 10% in the polls. He's done phenomenally well.

 

[Tarkus]

Rubio isn't ready for the main stage.

#sweatslikeapig

 

[NeoXChaos]

I'm surprised by the constant anti-Sanders sentiment. What gives?

I'm surprised by the constant anti-Hillary sentiment. What gives?

 

[Makai]

I'm surprised by the constant anti-Hillary sentiment. What gives?

You haven't seen it come from me. I haven't seen much of it outside of email scandal threads and my grandparents.

 

[Retromelon]

Whistles uncomfortably

I don't like anyone disrespecting my queeen........jk.

Hehe i bet the .......jk was what you edited in

 

[RDreamer]

You haven't seen it come from me. I haven't seen much of it outside of email scandal threads and my grandparents.

I see anti Hillary sentiment fucking everywhere. From old people from young people from liberals and conservatives.

 

[FiggyCal]

Why should we not be seeing anti-Hillary sentiments?

 

[Black Republican]

You haven't seen it come from me. I haven't seen much of it outside of email scandal threads and my grandparents.

lol whats the grandparents saying? untrustworthy?

 

[Makai]

lol whats the grandparents saying? untrustworthy?

I think my grandparents are Trump supporters. They think Bill Clinton should be in prison. I told my grandma I am thinking about moving to San Francisco and she said it's a "sanctuary city" and I need to do the research.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Why should we not be seeing anti-Hillary sentiments?

I don't like anyone disrespecting my queeen........jk.

Woman candidates have surely been treated similar to Hillary but her treatment is 100x more visceral. I don't understand the disdain for her specifically. I see flip-flopper being thrown around and corporate shill but so is every other male counterpart that have run for office. If she was Hillary Jones and not Hillary Clinton I wonder if she would be receiving the same treatment.

Is it a man thing? Is is conspiracy theories? Would Warren receive the same hatred if she ran?

Obama made people go crazy so I guess Hillary will to if she gets there.

 

[ZeezbruhTV]

Didn't Sanders march with MLK and have a long civil rights history? Why is he doing bad with minorities?

 

[Aaron Strife]

Nate's freaking right. Trump/Carson/Fiorina are not going to get the nomination. It's going to be either Bush or Rubio so I think that he is right in terms of odds.

Rubio maybe. Bush yeah fucking right.

Romney had a really flat personality but he wasn't a fucking idiot and he had huge money and establishment support behind him. Bush is completely floundering by comparison.

I don't think the nominee will be an establishment pick - I think the primary voters feel burned after McCain and Romney (two RINOs) were anointed by the party and didn't win shit against Obama, and how could ANYONE like Obama? Clearly we need someone more conservative.

Yeah maybe if Trump is in the lead the RNC will finangle the delegate rules so that someone more electable is the nominee. Then what do you think happens? Trump runs as a third party, finishes ahead in the general election of whatever jackwit the party bosses choose to save face and yet still far behind Hillary who wins like 40 states. Bold strategy Cotton.

 

[pigeon]

I think Nate's problem is that without polling to analyze he's about as useless as any other pundit.

Yeah, this is how I see it. I like Nate Silver, but it's a little surprising how aggressive he has become about generally opining about the race, when he used to be very clear that what distinguished him from other pundits was that he just consulted the data.

I think he feels compelled to weigh in on this early horse race stuff even though his general, probably accurate feeling is that most of the polling right now is useless. He'd be better off just to say "there's no real data so who can say?" Instead he's now in the Chuck Todd seat, arguing that even though the polls say Trump is the favorite, "everybody knows" he isn't.

 

[FiggyCal]

I don't like anyone disrespecting my queeen........jk.

Woman candidates have surely been treated similar to Hillary but her treatment is 100x more visceral. I don't understand the disdain for her specifically. I see flip-flopper being thrown around and corporate shill but so is every other male counterpart that have run for office. If she was Hillary Jones and not Hillary Clinton I wonder if she would be receiving the same treatment.

Is it a man thing? Is is conspiracy theories? Would Warren receive the same hatred if she ran?

Obama made people go crazy so I guess Hillary will to if she gets there.

I'm pretty sure it's just Hillary Clinton that people don't like. You don't really see the same kind of contempt for someone like Elizabeth Warren from other democrats. I'm sure her being a "Corporatist" democrat is part of it-- Obama has not been exempt from attacks from the liberal left. But really should it be odd that people just don't like her? Like personally I mean. Why does it have to be something else?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

What is it with this trend of people taking everything about a candidate personally? This seems to be an Internet thing and some thing beyond politics (the staning with celebs and corporate fanboys).

Maybe that's why retro and benji have become some of my favorite posters the don't respond like like someone insulted their mother. I mean they're a place to defend a candidate with the goal of making sure they get elected and can govern, but some of this stuff just seems weird

I can only speculate but I think it has to do with the decline of parties and institutional affiliations. People attach themselves to the people far more than they should IMO. Idk I view politics from an ideological/institutional lense (because Ono this is how power is actually excercised) and I think it's weird that people care that much about the person and honor of Clinton, sanders or trump.

With the exception of trump any republican will govern effectively the same. Same with Clinton or sanders.

 

[Black Republican]

bush will stay as long as he can, i think if he craps out at the first primaries he'll drop out for sure, unlike Walker/Perry, he actually has funds

 

[thepotatoman]

We're about 3.5 months away from Iowa, and 4.5 months away from Super Tuesday. There's definitely still time but we're starting to get close. The establishment needs to find a way to make their candidate super likable to rocket up the polls (rather difficult when you're talking about known quantities that have been hyped from the start), or find someway to take down both Carson and Trump and potentially Cruz and Fiorina as well, which will take a lot of work to do in a short amount of time.

EDIT: You know, there is one event that could shake things up. The government shutdown, or the lack of it, though I'm not entirely sure who would benefit and be hurt from that.

 

[FiggyCal]

What is it with this trend of people taking everything about a candidate personally? This seems to be an Internet thing and some thing beyond politics (the staning with celebs and corporate fanboys).

Maybe that's why retro and benji have become some of my favorite posters the don't respond like like someone insulted their mother. I mean they're a place to defend a candidate with the goal of making sure they get elected and can govern, but some of this stuff just seems weird

I can only speculate but I think it has to do with the decline of parties and institutional affiliations. People attach themselves to the people far more than they should IMO. Idk I view politics from an ideological/institutional lense (because Ono this is how power is actually excercised) and I think it's weird that people care that much about the person and honor of Clinton, sanders or trump.

With the exception of trump any republican will govern effectively the same. Same with Clinton or sanders.

You're writing as if this never been a thing before. In the past, did people generally choose politicians based off of what is politically efficient?

 

[NYCmetsfan]

You're writing as if this never been a thing before. In the past, did people generally choose politicians based off of what is politically efficient?

No but political discussions didn't revolve about complaints about how a supporter of a different candidate said something mean about my candidate.

I'm not decrying personality but the discussion by voters. And their vicarious need to attach themselves to them

 

[FiggyCal]

No but political discussions didn't revolve about complaints about how a supporter of a different candidate said something mean about my candidate.

I'm not decrying personality but the discussion by voters. And their vicarious need to attach themselves to them

Oh. Maybe. There weren't Internet forums back then though.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Oh. Maybe. There weren't Internet forums back then though.

It's a phenomena that's just recently started. Ive never seen it before in and polisci lit

 

[Makai]

It's a phenomena that's just recently started. Ive never seen it before in and polisci lit

I had a course that repeatedly demonstrated the shift of campaigns from party-centered to candidate-centered. It's a distinctly modern facet of politics but it's been around as long as television, not something that sprung up with Obama.

EDIT: The demonstrated shift was for congressmen, but I doubt it's much different for presidential primaries.

 

[curlyfriski]

With the exception of trump any republican will govern effectively the same. Same with Clinton or sanders.

Sanders and Clinton would not pursue remotely the same foreign policy, unless one of them does a sudden about-face.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Sanders and Clinton would not pursue remotely the same foreign policy, unless one of them does a sudden about-face.

Of course they would

 

[NYCmetsfan]

I had a course that repeatedly demonstrated the shift of campaigns from party-centered to candidate-centered. It's a distinctly modern facet of politics but it's been around as long as television, not something that sprung up with Obama.

EDIT: The demonstrated shift was for congressmen, but I doubt it's much different for presidential primaries.

I know about this but I think it changed with a personal attachment that is bizzare. It's beyond I like this person over that person.

 

[FiggyCal]

Sanders and Clinton would not pursue remotely the same foreign policy, unless one of them does a sudden about-face.

Sanders saying he'd continue Obamas drone policies don't really inspire much hope. I guess he's never advocated for war with Iran -- so he at least has that going for him.

 

[curlyfriski]

Of course they would

Based on what? Hillary, who positions herself as more hawkish than Obama, who voted for Iraq, who is entrenched within a political establishment that is perpetually gung-ho about military adventurism, is going to pursue the same course as Sanders? The deep state will have its say, but you're whitewashing some very clear ideological differences in an area where the President actually has room to operate freely.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Based on what? Hillary, who positions herself as more hawkish than Obama, who voted for Iraq, who is entrenched within a political establishment that is perpetually gung-ho about military adventurism, is going to pursue the same course as Sanders? The deep state will have its say, but you're whitewashing some very clear ideological differences in an area where the President actually has room to operate freely.

Sanders is much more hawkish than you're letting on.

 

[Makai]

I know about this but I think it changed with a personal attachment that is bizzare. It's beyond I like this person over that person.

2008 seemed way more personal to me. Gobama/Nobama. Ron Paul. Sarah Palin. Very candidate-centric and I recall acute emotionality among each candidate's supporters and detractors.

 

[curlyfriski]

Sanders is much more hawkish than you're letting on.

He's no dove, but he didn't vote for Iraq and is certainly less of a warmonger than Clinton of all people.