• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Diablos

Member
Carson's rise seems like the last hurrah of evangelicals or something.

I bet Fuckabee is furious over it.
Rubio is loving this shit. He's sitting back with his hot wife and just waiting for Carson and Trump to ruin each other so he can finally take the lead.

itshappening.gif

GOP Obama here we come~~

I hate saying this but I hope Trump survives. He'll never win the GE. Please make it through this, Trump.
 

Cheebo

Banned
Trump peaked too early I really think. Over the next few weeks I think most national polls with have Carson in the lead. His moment in the sub won't be as long as Trumps was.
 
Rubio is loving this shit. He's sitting back with his hot wife and just waiting for Carson and Trump to ruin each other so he can finally take the lead.

itshappening.gif

GOP Obama here we come~~

I hate saying this but I hope Trump survives. He'll never win the GE. Please make it through this, Trump.

The problem for Rubio is that it's hard for me to see Trump and Carson supporters going to him.

If Trump and Carson take each other out, someone like Ted Cruz seems better positioned than Rubio to pick up that bloc of support.
 

Diablos

Member
The problem for Rubio is that it's hard for me to see Trump and Carson supporters going to him.

If Trump and Carson take each other out, someone like Ted Cruz seems better positioned than Rubio to pick up that bloc of support.
Naw. Ted has lost his credibility. Trump and Carson are the new Ted Cruz, and way better at that whole 'outsider' thang.

When Trump falls, it's the establishment's turn.

Trump peaked too early I really think. Over the next few weeks I think most national polls with have Carson in the lead. His moment in the sub won't be as long as Trumps was.
Trump's problem is that he can't articulate anything. He came out of the gate with xenophobia, racism, sexism... and no substance. Like hope and change inspired Democrats, hate and fear inspired Repbublicans; the difference is, once Obama finished inspiring people he also laid out a plan for what he wanted to do as President. Trump is basically like "I'll make it work, trust me. Also, fuck immigrants."
 

Cheebo

Banned
For all the Nate Silver lolz his latest chat had a decent theory. That Rubio who is in third in Iowa right now could make a surprising second place finish and enter NH with momentum and win NH and steamrolls through the rest of the primary from there.
 

Konka

Banned
For all the Nate Silver lolz his latest chat had a decent theory. That Rubio who is in third in Iowa right now could make a surprising second place finish and enter NH with momentum and win NH and steamrolls through the rest of the primary from there.

Sounds like confirmation bias for the Rubio predictors!
 

HylianTom

Banned
Who is this clown talking in the press conference? This budget deal sounds like shit. More money for the military. GREAT!!!!
McCarthy seems bitter that Obama's still in the White House. He just oozes anger when he mentions it.

"We could've done a different budget.. if there were someone else in the White House.." #harrumph!

(And fuck you, Scalise! Eat a bag of spicy ghost pepper dicks!)
 

HylianTom

Banned
538: Bernie Sanders Could Win Iowa And New Hampshire. Then Lose Everywhere Else.

I guess Iowa only matters when it comes to theories about Trump losing the race.
Yesterday, MSNBC was covering how Trump has been quietly building a legitimate GOTV machine in Iowa. Imagine the headlines if he surprises people that night. Imagine the party's freak-out.

====

And the more I think about it, the more I realize: I need to start hoarding time off for next year. There's no way I'm going in to work the following morning after these fun nights of returns.

Dates to Consider:
Iowa: Mon, Feb 1
New Hampshire: Tues, Feb 9 (<-- Mardi Gras Day)
Super Tuesday: Tues, March 1
RNC: July 18-21
DNC: July 25-28
Pres debate #1: Mon, Sept 26
VP debate: Tues, Oct 4
Pres debate #2: Sun, Oct 9
Pres debate #3: Wed, Oct 19
Election Day: Tues, Nov 8
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Nate has this weird idea that voter preferences are 100% locked by demographic group months out from the first primary/caucus.

He's not wrong though, it'll take way more than a little momentum to beat Clinton. Remember that Bernie isn't Obama, not by any stretch of the imagination.
 
Sherrod Brown endorsed Hillary Clinton.

Edit: Beaten by a second

These are the only Democratic senators who haven't endorsed Clinton yet:

Maria Cantwell &#8211; WA
Chris Coons &#8211; DE
Bob Menendez &#8211; NJ
Jeff Merkley &#8211; OR
Harry Reid &#8211; NV
Jon Tester &#8211; MT
Elizabeth Warren &#8211; MA
Ron Wyden &#8211; OR
 

NeoXChaos

Member
OMG what in the world?

The Monmouth University survey finds Clinton taking 65 percent support among likely Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa, while Sanders takes 24 percent. Former Maryland Gov. Martin O&#8217;Malley clocks in at 5 percent support.

Clinton leads among every demographic in the poll &#8212; men, women, very liberal Democrats, somewhat liberal Democrats, and self-described moderate voters. Her biggest lead is among women, with whom she commands a 73 to 16 advantage over Sanders.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/258199-poll-clinton-routing-sanders-by-41-points-in-iowa
 

NeoXChaos

Member
Nate Cohn &#8207;@Nate_Cohn 12m12 minutes ago
Many young, reg unaffiliated vtrs who have never vtd in a state primary will turnout, and all of the polling suggests they're for Sanders

A lot of the 18-29 bracket were not old enough to caucus in 08 so they certainly would be new voters. I wonder if Bernie can expand on the 22% that came out in 08?

So the Bernie coalition is more 18-25 than 18-30. People in their mid to late 20s were old enough to vote Obama in 2008.

This too. How much of Hillary's support is of Obama's coalition? Are the mid to late 20's with Bernie or Hillary now?
 

GPsych

Member
Huffpo has this.

Having doctors sign off on disabilities instead of Social Security Workers sounds great in theory, but it will be a complete shitstorm. Disability definitions are legal definitions and are frequently very different from medical diagnoses. Social Security personnel live and breathe that criteria while doctors...well, they frequently can't find shoes in a shoebox when it comes to social security.

I supposed they could also be changing the disability definitions to coincide more with ICD-10 or DSM-V, but that will also create a huge host of problems.
 
Having doctors sign off on disabilities instead of Social Security Workers sounds great in theory, but it will be a complete shitstorm. Disability definitions are legal definitions and are frequently very different from medical diagnoses. Social Security personnel live and breathe that criteria while doctors...well, they frequently can't find shoes in a shoebox when it comes to social security.

I supposed they could also be changing the disability definitions to coincide more with ICD-10 or DSM-V, but that will also create a huge host of problems.
I thought doctors already sign off for disability? I remember that NPR piece on this small town doctor that signed off on disability paperwork for almost the entire town population.
 

AndyD

aka andydumi
I thought doctors already sign off for disability? I remember that NPR piece on this small town doctor that signed off on disability paperwork for almost the entire town population.

It's state by state.

In some they have nurses on staff that help the SSA officials. In some a doctor signs off. It varies.

Last I looked at one, (few years ago in TN) two sets of nurses signed off on the approval/denial by the SSA official though preliminary benefits can start before the final decision.
 

GPsych

Member
I thought doctors already sign off for disability? I remember that NPR piece on this small town doctor that signed off on disability paperwork for almost the entire town population.

Sort of...I'm at work so I don't want to write a massive post, but here's the extremely simplified/reader's digest version:

Step 1: A person applies for SSDI and fills out a ton of paperwork. The applicant also submits doctors' reports, psychological reports, etc.
Step 2: Social Security worker reviews all the information. In some cases, SSDI starts if there is already sufficient information for the applicant to meet the disability condition criteria.
Step 3: More than likely, social security requests more information through evaluation. This may also be more paperwork for the physician to fill out.
Step 4: Social Security looks at all the final information and compares it to disability criteria, ultimately deciding if the applicant meets the criteria or not.

Based on the budget, it sounds like they are removing the social security worker's disability determination role. They will know longer act as gatekeepers. That isn't explicit in the HuffPo article, admittedly.

I also should have clarified that it has been close to 10 years (wow, time really does fly) since I did psych evals for social security. It might have changed substantially since then.

This was also in Texas. State rules do vary.
 
I went with my bf to his doctor's appointment. They're showing Fox News. Pray for me.

They sound like Christmas has come early showing Carson ahead. Now they have one of the Duck Dynasty bumpkins on here. Cause he's a real political mastermind.

Oh god, this old man is telling all of us how Trump is going to save this country from and I quote "the queers, the Islams, and the Hismexicans." Save me liberal Jesus.
 

Makai

Member
To be fair pretty much everyone in the media & political journalism and the like agree with Nate. As do the betting odds. If Trump is the nominee it isn't Nate being wrong. It is virtually every political journalist in the country being wrong. And the entire media establishment continues to double down on this.

For example, just on Friday I saw Chris Cizzila the main politics beat writer for the Washington Post declare Trump is unlikely to win a single primary.
Nate's whole shtick is that he is a data-driven fox and everyone else is a nonsense-driven hedgehog. He's killed that narrative by bandwagoning with the hedgehogs.
 
Trump peaked too early I really think. Over the next few weeks I think most national polls with have Carson in the lead. His moment in the sub won't be as long as Trumps was.

Trump does better the more exposure he has. I expect another rise after the next debate. Carson is going to get hit HARD tomorrow though. If he doesn't defend himself well I can see him declining.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Trump does better the more exposure he has. I expect another rise after the next debate. Carson is going to get hit HARD tomorrow though. If he doesn't defend himself well I can see him declining.

Looking forward to this very, very much.
 

Makai

Member
I like Krugman's take:

But you can&#8217;t be an effective fox just by letting the data speak for itself &#8212; because it never does. You use data to inform your analysis, you let it tell you that your pet hypothesis is wrong, but data are never a substitute for hard thinking. If you think the data are speaking for themselves, what you&#8217;re really doing is implicit theorizing, which is a really bad idea (because you can&#8217;t test your assumptions if you don&#8217;t even know what you&#8217;re assuming.)

Gotta agree there. The approach he takes in his analysis is quite unscientific (luckily, still falsifiable). Nate formed a grande hedgehog hypothesis that Trump cannot win the nomination based soley on his favorability. All information is filtered through this claim and he selects reinforcing data. A real fox would go about it the other way - make a hypothesis and use data to attempt to disprove it.
 

jtb

Banned
eh, I think Nate has been pretty transparent about the challenges he thinks Trump faces in getting the nomination and how/whether he would overcome them. I don't like their weekly Slack chats though, pretty pointless... much rather just read a coherent article with a sustained argument.
 
Didn't we just have a graph that showed Trump at his highest levels yet? 6 hours later, he's doomed?

h6JKuhl.png
 
SteveKornacki:

Now it's two Iowa polls with Hillary opening a giant lead in Iowa. Loras College:
Clinton 62%
Sanders 24
O'Malley 3
https://t.co/mhupPME3qj


...

Is this a Benghazi Bump?
Wow. No wonder Bernie is going negative.

One big problem Bernie is going to have getting the youth vote out on caucus night that is being widely under-reported: the 2008 caucus was on January 3rd. Students had all gone home to regions all over Iowa, allowing Obama to pile up delegates all across the state (and he also had the organization to bus in Iowa students from surrounding states). The caucus this year is on February 1st - all the students will be back and located in only a handful of college counties. Whether he gets 5000 students or 50,000 students to caucus for him in Iowa City or Ames will have no effect on his delegate count, and he'll suffer in all the rural regions. If there was a DNC conspiracy, this is it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom