Retromelon
Member
ed muskie in '72
-
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
ed muskie in '72
There wasnt a contended primary in Iowa in 1992. Due to the home state senator running. Everyone else conceded it.
I would LOVE Trump to win the nomination. I would be beyond overjoyed. I am just completely unswayed about how politics has been for the past 40 years completely changing suddenly. He needs to actually win one of these states to convince me of such a unprecedented change.
I would LOVE Trump to win the nomination. I would be beyond overjoyed. I am just completely unswayed about how politics has been for the past 40 years completely changing suddenly. He needs to actually win one of these states to convince me of such a unprecedented change.
2008 was also before the GOP base had completely soured on the party leadership. There really seems to have been a fundamental change in their electorate that happened after Obama won election. And then, when their newly-minted majorities failed to adequately fight Obama, their sense of betrayal, disillusionment, etc only skyrocketed.
This was reflected well in one of Trump's earliest major appearances, when he basically made the argument (paraphrasing here):
"are you going to trust this party's leaders again? After they betrayed your hard work in 2010 and 2014? After they blew a winnable race in 2012? Screw that - and screw them!"
2008's GOP electorate mood is remarkably different from 2016's, so comparisons can only go so far.
I know one thing: if I were Obama, watching all of this transpire? I'd want to keep on goosing their voters. Keep them angry. Flaunt that I'm President. Keep getting away with various "unAmerican" things. In 2008, it was HOPE that fueled Obama
(or Hopium if you're a PoliGAFer)
RustyNails
Member
Man, your avatar launched me into a fit of laughter. Goddamit bobby!
As for your post, can't wait for Caliph Hussein's decree to shutdown Guantanamo Bay and set his Brothers free.
Veritigo_X
Member
Yeah, I'm reading this Guardian article breaking down all the mistakes he made.
- Socially liberal
- No strategy set for IA/NH, focused on Florida and other bigger states instead
- Media attacks actually affected his support
None of these seem to apply to Trump this time around.
I've never been happier to have a Jindal avatar. 😅
(Or, I should say, I never thought I'd be so happy with a Jindal avatar!)
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I was thinking '76 as the start of the modern primary era; races prior to '76 were not really decided by the party membership and '76 featured a comprehensive redesign of the Democratic primary system that has remained relatively intact until today.
'76: Carter won Iowa, NH, won the nomination.
'80: Split between candidates. At least one was taken by the eventual nominee.
'84: Split between candidates. At least one was taken by the eventual nominee.
'88: Split between candidates. At least one was taken by the eventual nominee.
'92: Split between candidates; Iowa never contested.
'96: -
'00: Gore won Iowa, NH, won the nomination.
'04: Kerry won Iowa, NH, won the nomination.
'08: Split between candidates. At least one was taken by the eventual nominee.
'12: -
I suppose it would be more accurate to say that nobody has ever won the nomination without winning at least one of Iowa or NH when both were contested.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Coriolanus
Banned
Plus it seems that going full bucket mode boosted his popularity rating, so it's win win.
c'mon son. At best you're in the top 5.
Fenderputty
Banned
He's got nothing to lose at this point. Why not try everything?
Yellowtail
Member
Including Rubio? Can his campaign survive if he comes third or fourth in NH?
If he loses both he will begin to collapse, if he loses SC after that? 100% dead.
Yep. With almost 100% certainty the nominee of the GOP is going to win either Iowa, or NH, or both.
Ditto for Democrats obviously.
RustyNails
Member
NH is basically the Alamo for establishment. If Cruz, Rubio, Jeb or Christie manage to take it, then it's still playtime left. Otherwise it's over.
Hillary would still be the favorite if Sanders won both Iowa and New Hampshire.
She would have to collapse to lose Iowa at this point.
Coriolanus
Banned
Well, that's the thing.
Being the favourite is a downgrade for her. Currently she's pretty much already crowned.
Either way that's firmly in Miracle territory.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Sanders is within about 7.5 percentage points in Iowa with two months to go? That's not a collapse. Besides, the caucus system doesn't match the popular vote anyway, it tends to reward enthusiasm.
Manmademan
Member
this has been coming for a while. Trump and carson had high crossover due to the whole "outsider" and "not a politician" thing.
If either one ends up tanking (and it looks like it was carson) the other one would have become unstoppable. Looks like it's happening early due to Carson looking like shit on foreign policy in the wake of a terror attack.
So there's an entire Tumblr of Game of Thrones quotes on pictures of Hillary:
http://ofthehouseclinton.tumblr.com/
Also:
http://ofthehouseclinton.tumblr.com/
Also:
Partner polls are always released with the approval of the partner only. Thats what it means to partner, you pay for the poll to be carried out and so you own the results and can do what you want with them.
Yellowtail
Member
When Trump first entered the race I thought he'd have a great shot at winning NH and bombing elsewhere. He's a PERFECT fit for the state - a Buchananesque nativist that's dominated the New England media markets for years.
Rubio on the other hand doesn't fit the mold of previous NH winners. He's not a neighboring governor like Romney, he's not considered a maverick with crossover independent appeal like McCain, and he doesn't attract North Eastern white working class moderates like Buchanan or Trump. He's in the worst case scenario of being too moderate for Iowa and too conservative for NH (while Trump has managed to successfully position himself as the opposite).
One big thing that could sway the NH primary is Clinton's performance in Iowa. If she blows Bernie away there, most independents will consider the Democratic race a done deal and vote in the wide open Republican primary. I imagine that would probably help Trump more than anyone.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
Not sure why anyone would stress that Fox poll. They're the only poll in the last 4 months to show a Trump lead, making it a clear outlier. Even Quinn with their +8 R electorate couldn't squeeze out a Trump lead. See for yourself.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/ep...s/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html
Butts-a-plenty
Banned
I have it on good authority that the FBI has discovered the "whitey" tape in Hillary's emails and that it was actually Hillary herself depicted in the tape. Ambassador Stevens stumbled across a copy of this recording and was about ready to deliver it to Breibart when Hillary ordered the "terrorist attack" on the compound in Benghazi. You can expect this to be on the front page by Christmas. Pretty much ending her campaign.
I don't care about these kinds of polls, just disputing your claim: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com...ate=2015-06-01&smoothing=less&estimate=custom
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
If that NH Republican poll were true, Trump would get 17 delegates, Rubio would get 5, Carson would get 5, and 3 would be discretionary (presumably to Rubio).
Aaron Strife
Banned
It's exactly the same as their previous poll
Veritigo_X
Member
Ah gotcha, I figured the PPP would still own the results. It makes sense from a business standpoint, but I'm not exactly a fan of it.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
So you're surprised that your less smoothing filter would show a Trump lead because the most recent outlier shows Trump +5? Did you look at the previous 12 polls or are you intentionally playing dumb?
Just scroll down to see the other polls with a Trump lead.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
12 polls in a row showing a tie or Clinton lead. That's all I need to know.
What about the 3-4 months prior?
I won't dwell on one specific poll, but if the trend of 3-4 polls show people switching their vote from Hillary to Trump, then it has my attention.
This guy is such a low energy person, truly. Believe me, Jeb is a complete loser and a total disaster!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
If you look at polls with samples conducted over the last two weeks, Trump is on average +0.75 over Clinton.
EDIT: And if you overlap the margins of error, you can say with 90% confidence in Trump vs. Clinton that Trump is somewhere between 43.0% and 45.0%, while Clinton is performing between 42.3% and 44.0%. Obviously that assumes a sound methodology on behalf of all the pollsters involved.
EDIT: And if you overlap the margins of error, you can say with 90% confidence in Trump vs. Clinton that Trump is somewhere between 43.0% and 45.0%, while Clinton is performing between 42.3% and 44.0%. Obviously that assumes a sound methodology on behalf of all the pollsters involved.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
There have only been 3 polls conducted in the last two weeks and one of them is Fox, which brings us back to the outlier discussion.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Okay, which is why I have the edit above. Unless the outlier is one of the 5% which are outside the margin of error given for the 95% confidence level, then we know that Trump must be within the highest margin of error bound for the lower poll and the lower margin of error bound for the highest poll. Same for Clinton. These results are very close. We can conclude with 90% confidence, assuming no grave methodological flaws, that Clinton is at best +1 over Trump, and is at worst -2.7 behind.
I mean, ultimately this is pointless because we have almost a year of campaigning to go, which will completely change the state of the race, making predictions now rather inaccurate. However, based on the best predictions we can make (which aren't very good), one would have to conclude Trump would give Clinton a run for her money.
Yellowtail
Member
The establishment's great hope:
http://www.rightwingwatch.org/conte...les-always-wins#sthash.onPUyN1R.00AOx1KE.dpuf
I must have missed the law forcing people to give or receive abortions against their beliefs. Same for gay marriage
Coriolanus
Banned
No need to threaten jeb. Just ask papa bush to tell him to fuck off For The Greater Good.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Really, New Hampshire and Iowa should have swapped places for the Republicans this year, or at least swapped structures so that Iowa is still ahead. New Hampshire will kill the campaigns of anyone who does not get 10% in New Hampshire immediately, whereas people can write off Iowa more easily. Having Iowa first means more people alive going into New Hampshire means more people not making the bar at New Hampshire means more Trump.
Basileus777
Member
With the benefit of hindsight sure, but I don't think you can really blame them for not foreseeing the current situation.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
True. It was more an observation on how fortune seems to be smiling on Trump.
Abinash117
Member
Jeb Bush/other establishment candidates would have to drop out soon, otherwise they would cannibalize each other and Rubio in the primary. If they drop out the support and such will go to Rubio. At the same time Rubio would be an easy target for everyone else though.
He didn't exactly say that, but what he actually said was nonetheless profoundly stupid, no matter how favorable or unfavorable you look at it. He said that he would take an 'imbecile' like Carson over Noam Chomsky, because Carson at least acknowledges that "Jihadis are the enemy". He has made a point multiple times in the past that is a tragedy that liberals leave the discussion of jihadism to right-wing lunatics. So the most favorable interpretation here would be that he said it in that sentiment. Nonetheless, it's a profoundly stupid thing to say, and it's obviously fueled by a frustration over Chomsky.
Similarly, his comment about Cruz's preference for Christians was—while based on factual claims—naive and missing the larger picture. While it is true that Muslim immigration/refugees come with a risk of importing some Islamists/Jihadists in the process, the opportunities here for spreading liberal values seem much higher to me than this risks. Especially since, as far as I know, Syrian Muslims tend to be more on the liberal spectrum, and thus are—to use Harris' own words—"the most important people in the world to support" and people that should get "immediate US citizenship, if they want to".
But even if we would have to deal with refugees from conservative Muslim majority countries, there is still more opportunity than risk. The best way to deal with the subset of conservative Muslim refugees that are Islamists/Jihadists is to instill them with doubt, and the best way to do that is to confront them and integrate them into a Western society. Not under a paradigm of uncritical multiculturalism, but under a policy that seeks to convey Western liberal values through mandatory education and fair integration.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Rubio comes out in favor of Sharia Law:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...ubio-gods-rules-trump-supreme-court-decisions
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...ubio-gods-rules-trump-supreme-court-decisions
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked