Support NeoGAF

[eBay Huckster]

He'd win them all. And steal WI and PA too. I think he costs like 6% nationally

I don't know if he'd win all six plus WI/PA, but I can plausibly see a map where he takes IA/OH/VA/FL for 272-266.

(Note that I'm dean of the Aaron Strife School for Blind Democratic Optimism, so it's probably closer to your assessment.)

And I dont see much of this post-Iowa bump for Clinton. She is at her lowest point ever in the averages.

Per Wang (via the link Kev posted a couple minutes ago):

In national surveys, Clinton went from a median of Clinton +12% (4 polls, January 22-February 1) to Clinton +16% (3 polls, February 2-4). This is noisy data, but the median change is a national 4-point bounce for Clinton. It is possible there was little change in either direction (see confidence intervals below).

 

[Hammer24]

More people voted in the South Carolina Democratic primary in 08 than the Republican one. Lot of good that did.

Well, speaking of IA, they had the biggest turnout for a Rep caucus ever. While the numbers on the Dem caucus we're down.
Wouldn't voter turnout play an important role in the GE? Honestly, I can See neither Sanders nor Clinton get Obamas turnout numbers.

 

[RustyNails]

Rubio will sweep every swing state (including NH) and also flip PA and WI. Bernie will lose the entire heartland (and South of course) except IL. He will only hold a few NE states and the pacific coast.

 

[ivysaur12]

Part of it. Which is truth, young men are still sexists. But the other part of the narrative does imply Sanders supporters are all male, which is obviously false since Sanders holds the biggest lead with young women.

And I dont see much of this post-Iowa bump for Clinton. She is at her lowest point ever in the averages.

Except that she's gotten a noticeable polling bump in New Hampshire (and Sanders's numbers have been sliding there). That's what Sam's point is.

Yes, Sanders did well with young white women in Iowa. You're discounting young women of color, who are more supportive of Clinton than their white peers.

Well, speaking of IA, they had the biggest turnout for a Rep caucus ever. While the numbers on the Dem caucus we're down.
Wouldn't voter turnout play an important role in the GE? Honestly, I can See neither Sanders nor Clinton get Obamas turnout numbers.

The Democratic numbers were the second highest ever and it was a two person race versus a three person race in 08, and a 12 person race the Republicans had in 2016.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Except that she's gotten a noticeable polling bump in New Hampshire (and Sanders's numbers have been sliding there). That's what Sam's point is.

Yes, Sanders did well with young white women in Iowa. You're discounting young women of color, who are more supportive of Clinton than their white peers.



The Democratic numbers were the second highest ever and it was a two person race versus a three person race in 08, and a 12 person race the Republicans had in 2016.

I found it. We will.

 

[PBY]

Curious if the candidates tonight use any of Betnies attacks against Hillary. I could see it.

 

[Gruco]

I'm surprised to see people picking such huge margins for Rubio. I always thought his appeal as a candidate was that he is likely to perform well in Florida and in states with more latino voters, specifically. I don't see anything about his that makes him an incredibly broad threat nationally, or would put somewhere like PA into play....other than his apparent mind-erasing powers which empower him to convince people his is a moderate.

 

[And_Gignac]

I don't know if he'd win all six plus WI/PA, but I can plausibly see a map where he takes IA/OH/VA/FL for 272-266



Per Wang (via the link Kev posted a couple minutes ago):

Convenient selecting since the polls he talks about have different metodologies that favour Clinton (like PP). If you compare poll vs poll before and after Iowa you will see a clear bump for Sanders, even if you dont consider the big jumps Sanders had with Q and Reuters.


In the case of NH, both the averages from Huffpollster and RCP show Clinton still at her lowest point ever even when they are not adding the CNN tracking poll (both Huff and RCP only added the 2/4 result, not the 2/5 like they did with ARG and UMass).

 

[Hammer24]

The Democratic numbers were the second highest ever and it was a two person race versus a three person race in 08, and a 12 person race the Republicans had in 2016.

So you think the Dem voter turnout will be the same This year?

 

[ivysaur12]

Convenient selecting since the polls he talks about have different metodologies that favour Clinton (like PP). If you compare poll vs poll before and after Iowa you will see a clear bump for Sanders, even if you dont consider the big jumps Sanders had with Q and Reuters.


In the case of NH, both the averages from Huffpollster and RCP show Clinton still at her lowest point ever even when they are not adding the CNN tracking poll (both Huff and RCP only added the 2/4 result, not the 2/5 like they did with ARG and UMass).

Er, no, she's not.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com...ate=2015-11-01&smoothing=less&estimate=custom

Her lowest ever was 36.5% on Jan 31st. Now she's up to 38.3%. Bernie is also down from his high.

I still think he'll win, but c'mon. The data is right there.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

He'd win them all. And steal WI and PA too. I think he costs like 6% nationally

Assuming you're right about Bernie costing 6% nationally, and keeping in mind that the white vote will represent 3% less of the overall vote than it did in 2012, this is what Bernie would lose that Obama won in 2012:

FL
VA
OH


Too close to call:
CO
PA


CO is trending bluer and bluer so it would probably stay with Bernie. PA would be a genuine toss-up, but let's go ahead and say Rubio takes it.

So in this scenario for Rubio, which assumes that hispanics and white's under 40 will vote R at 2012 percentages despite evidence showing they're fleeing the party, Rubio would squeak out a 271-267 victory. Mind you, we're giving him PA here. That's the GOP's best case scenario with their most electable candidate.

 

[QuiteWhittle]

What do you think the map would look like?

With the swing states being:

OH
FL
CO
VA
NC
NV

Which states does Rubio win? I'd give him Florida and probably Ohio, especially if he puts Kasich on the ticket. The fact is, though, most states are very set in their red/blue status. A McGovern blowout would absolutely not happen in today's political climate. Rubio's chances of winning are almost entirely reliant on a clean sweep of every swing state, which favor Rubio in instances where the population is especially old and/or especially white. However, the math is against his favor.

Rubio/Kasich vs. Clinton/Kaine
http://www.270towin.com/maps/avGw0

Change PA to blue for a winning Clinton map.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I was just looking at this graph, I honestly don't know. It seems to be much better than ours, but much worse than Britain's, which is odd since they use the same basic idea:

And this:



http://www.cbc.ca/news/health/medical-wait-times-up-to-3-times-longer-in-canada-1.2663013

Canada and the UK do not use anything like similar systems. Canada is single-payer. The UK is nationalized healthcare. In Canada all health services are provided by private companies and the government foots the bills; in the UK the government literally owns the entire healthcare service (barring GPs who are technically contracted out but that's more a quirk of history than anything else).

Roughly speaking, in Western countries you have four models - the British model, the Canadian model, the German model, and the American model; to name the largest Western economy associated with each. The British and American models are both essentially unique, so most healthcare systems can be split between universal singlepayer (Canada) and universal multipayer (Germany). The most successful is probably the British system, but I think it would be close to impossible to replicate anywhere else.

The French system is a better model for most countries, and is close to a singlepayer system (there are technically multiple insurance funds paid into by multiple people but the largest one covers 84% of the population and the others exist only to try and force a semblance of competition and the vast majority of money that flows into these funds comes from the government). The insurance companies exist only as a means of management, because e.g. the Canadian government has proved quite bad at price negotiating compared to when you have multiple institutions all trying to negotiate for a better deal. It's a more decentralized form of what Canada does, essentially, that uses competition mechanisms within a heavily regulated sphere.

I think an American system would look very similar to the French system even if intended to follow the Canadian route just because the presence of multiple states bargaining would simulate the important part; most countries aren't as politically incoherent as America. I think a governor who failed to reach as good a bargain as her neighbour on pricing would not do well electorally, the converse also being true.

 

[Black Mamba]

I'm surprised to see people picking such huge margins for Rubio. I always thought his appeal as a candidate was that he is likely to perform well in Florida and in states with more latino voters, specifically. I don't see anything about his that makes him an incredibly broad threat nationally, or would put somewhere like PA into play....other than his apparent mind-erasing powers which empower him to convince people his is a moderate.

It's not about rubio it's about bernie.

I think bernie would be a disaster of a candidate. I don't think America lines up with his views at all. I think he's a terrible campaigner. His most ardent supporters harm him rather than help.

I don't think he's a Democrat. I don't think a blue wall applies at all. I think of you were to run against an incumbent gop president they wasnt seen as a disaster at the time, it would be 84 all over again.

 

[PBY]

It's not about rubio it's about bernie.

I think bernie would be a disaster of a candidate. I don't think America lines up with his views at all. I think he's a terrible campaigner. His most ardent supporters harm him rather than help.

I don't think he's a Democrat. I don't think a blue wall applies at all. I think of you were to run against an incumbent gop president they wasnt seen as a disaster at the time, it would be 84 all over again.

I don't see whats complicated about the fact that an atheist socialist simply will not be president of the USA in 2016.

 

[Macho Madness]

The Democratic numbers were the second highest ever and it was a two person race versus a three person race in 08, and a 12 person race the Republicans had in 2016.

Don't make Marty sad now.

 

[Gruco]

It's not about rubio it's about bernie.

Oh, yeah. Bernie would be a complete disaster in a general election. If his hard left stake on everything didn't convince people of that already, I hope at least the man's obvious, lazy disinterest in policy does.

 

[eBay Huckster]

Convenient selecting

yeah, let's claim "convenience" when one poll favoring Sanders won't release full crosstabs (but has wonky splits in what we can see anyway, namely college vs non-college) & the other claimed a RV screen of all voters was Dem-IDing LVs

 

[Retromelon]

 

[Black Mamba]

Assuming you're right about Bernie costing 6% nationally, and keeping in mind that the white vote will represent 3% less of the overall vote than it did in 2012, this is what Bernie would lose that Obama won in 2012:

FL
VA
OH


Too close to call:
CO
PA


CO is trending bluer and bluer so it would probably stay with Bernie. PA would be a genuine toss-up, but let's go ahead and say Rubio takes it.

So in this scenario for Rubio, which assumes that hispanics and white's under 40 will vote R at 2012 percentages despite evidence showing they're fleeing the party, Rubio would squeak out a 271-267 victory. Mind you, we're giving him PA here. That's the GOP's best case scenario with their most electable candidate.

No. Not 6% compared to Obama. 6% compared to a generic Democrat who I assume would perform worse than Obama would.

Put it this way. I coukd see him losing 52-46. That would be a disaster.

And that's the best case scenario. I think his floor is lower. 6% min. Could be up to 10.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Er, no, she's not.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com...ate=2015-11-01&smoothing=less&estimate=custom

Her lowest ever was 36.5% on Jan 31st. Now she's up to 38.3%. Bernie is also down from his high.

I still think he'll win, but c'mon. The data is right there.

Yes, because you made a custom graph with less smoothing. C'mon, ivysaur, I've seen you call out others for that before, don't do it yourself when the situation is reversed.

 

[And_Gignac]

Er, no, she's not.

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com...ate=2015-11-01&smoothing=less&estimate=custom

Her lowest ever was 36.5% on Jan 31st. Now she's up to 38.3%. Bernie is also down from his high.

I still think he'll win, but c'mon. The data is right there.

Because the CNN tracking poll is not getting added (Sanders 61/31). That certainly would push her down to the 36% territory.

The only poll where Sanders has lost advantage pre-Iowa and post-Iowa is the UMass/7News one.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Rubio/Kasich vs. Clinton/Kaine
http://www.270towin.com/maps/avGw0

Change PA to blue for a winning Clinton map.

How do you figure Rubio/Kasich take Colorado? It's becoming reliably blue. Otherwise I could see that map happening. With anyone other than Rubio/Kasich, though, I don't think the GOP holds OH or FL.

 

[Officerrob]

Rubio beats Bernie in VA, I'd almost guarantee it

 

[Deleted member 231381]

He does?

(latest virginia poll, has Sanders beating Rubio by 10 points, Clinton beating Rubio by 3).

 

[Black Mamba]

How do you figure Rubio/Kasich take Colorado? It's becoming reliably blue. Otherwise I could see that map happening. With anyone other than Rubio/Kasich, though, I don't think the GOP holds OH or FL.

Bernie is not a Democrat. Colorado becoming more blue doesn't mean it's becoming very left. Those that are causing the shift to blue would stay home or switch.

Bernie running is not the same as any other regular Democrat.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

No. Not 6% compared to Obama. 6% compared to a generic Democrat who I assume would perform worse than Obama would.

Put it this way. I coukd see him losing 52-46. That would be a disaster.

And that's the best case scenario. I think his floor is lower. 6% min. Could be up to 10.

I think it's too difficult to estimate how a "generic" democrat would perform in 2016 to then use that as a basis for how Bernie would compare. For instance, does a generic democrat put AZ into play? Does a generic democrat make the GOP defend Georgia? So on and so forth. There are demographic possibilities now that Obama never even got to consider.

Bernie is not a Democrat. Colorado becoming more blue doesn't mean it's becoming very left. Those that are causing the shift to blue would stay home or switch.

Bernie running is not the same as any other regular Democrat.

The matchup I was responding to was Clinton/Kaine vs. Rubio/Kasich.

 

[kirblar]

I think it's too difficult to estimate how a "generic" democrat would perform in 2016 to then use that as a basis for how Bernie would compare. For instance, does a generic democrat put AZ into play? Does a generic democrat make the GOP defend Georgia? So on and so forth. There are demographic possibilities now that Obama never even got to consider.

A generic democrat vs a generic GOPer results in a win for the democrat as the electoral map currently stands.

 

[Black Mamba]

He does?

These polls are worthless. I could wipe my ass with them a derive more value that way. Need to stop bringing them up.

This election is too important to risk it on bernie.

 

[Officerrob]

He does?

(latest virginia poll, has Sanders beating Rubio by 10 points, Clinton beating Rubio by 3).

Yes, he does. I've worked on several campaigns here in VA, he's not winning this state.

 

[And_Gignac]

He does?

(latest virginia poll, has Sanders beating Rubio by 10 points, Clinton beating Rubio by 3).

That poll is meaningless because reasons you know.

Unless it has Clinton leading, then it becomes evidence on how electable she is.

 

[NeoXChaos]

Yes, he does. I've worked on several campaigns here in VA, he's not winning this state.

what problems does Bernie run into?

 

[Poodlestrike]

She lied about killing Vince Foster in Benghazi.

Probably a combination of:

A): She's a politician so she has lied and flip flopped at times, but unlike Bernie Sanders' gay marriage saga of shifting and unclear positions, she has been in the public view forever so her flip flops are far more obvious.

B): Some sexism.

Plus, decades of right-wing FUD.

 

[Officerrob]

That poll is meaningless because reasons you know.

Unless it has Clinton leading, then it becomes evidence on how electable she is.

It's almost like Republicans have been running against one of the Dems for years and the other has yet to be touched by the avalanche of negative media

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Rubio's performance amongst Hispanics isn't any better than Romney's, according to pretty much all the polling we have. It's incredibly reductive to boil Hispanics down to a single group; the vast majority of Hispanic voters in America are from Mexico and Central America, while Rubio is of Cuban origin. These are cultural communities separated now by 200 years of history, it's like saying that Indian Americans would vote for a Pakistani American because they're both from South Asia. This is just abysmal political analysis and an erasure of the unique minority identity of many Hispanic voters.

 

[ivysaur12]

Yes, because you made a custom graph with less smoothing. C'mon, ivysaur, I've seen you call out others for that before, don't do it yourself when the situation is reversed.

I literally linked to the data from Sam's post, and less smoothing is correct since we're trying to gauge a post-Iowa bounce with little data. If you have a problem with that, I'd love to hear it since I really don't see any.

Bernie will win New Hampshire. That's fine. But in terms of her aggregate polling, Sam's point is that Hillary has gotten a bounce from New Hampshire. And if we're to look at Hillary's polling from Jan 31st to now, that seems to be the case.

 

[ugaboga232]

Bernie is not a Democrat. Colorado becoming more blue doesn't mean it's becoming very left. Those that are causing the shift to blue would stay home or switch.

Bernie running is not the same as any other regular Democrat.

I get what you are saying, but this is all theory. The polls, as incredibly bad and shitty as they are for GE at this point, say hes doing a bit better than clinton. You could make a rational case the he will do better for a variety of reasons.

PS sam wang is the man, interviewed with him (hes actually a neuro person, the election stuff is just things he does for fun) and I think he is doing cool stuff (still hes at the top of a very fancy new pyramid financed by jeff bezos so he better use all the advantages hes got).

 

[Deleted member 231381]

These polls are worthless. I could wipe my ass with them a derive more value that way. Need to stop bringing them up.

This election is too important to risk it on bernie.

C'mon, we're in February now. These polls get more and more accurate every month. You might have a +/-5 error term, fine, whatever... but this has Sanders with a 10 point lead. This is just massive cognitive dissonance, now.

 

[Y2Kev]

Yes, because you made a custom graph with less smoothing. C'mon, ivysaur, I've seen you call out others for that before, don't do it yourself when the situation is reversed.

Why would you go for more smoothing if you're trying to find bounces in small samples?

If there is a poll missing, that's one thing. But why would you use more smoothing?

 

[ivysaur12]

C'mon, we're in February now. These polls get more and more accurate every month. You might have a +/-5 error term, fine, whatever... but this has Sanders with a 10 point lead. This is just massive cognitive dissonance, now.

But he hasn't been attacked from the right! That's the fear of election polling pre convention. We actually haven't seen how Bernie can handle being attacked from the right, while Hillary has spent this entire campaign being attacked as the presumptive nominee.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I literally linked to the data from Sam's post, and less smoothing is correct since we're trying to gauge a post-Iowa bounce with little data. If you have a problem with that, I'd love to hear it since I really don't see any.

Bernie will win New Hampshire. That's fine. But in terms of her aggregate polling, Sam's point is that Hillary has gotten a bounce from New Hampshire. And if we're to look at Hillary's polling from Jan 31st to now, that seems to be the case.

No, she hasn't. CNN shows her down after NH compared to their prior poll, as does YouGov, as does Gravis. Marist shows her slightly up... but Sanders up by an even larger amount. There is precisely 1(!) poll that shows her reducing the gap between her and Sanders in NH, which is Lowell. That's 1 of 5, with 3 of 5 showing her down, and 1 showing her up but Sanders up by more.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

A generic democrat vs a generic GOPer results in a win for the democrat as the electoral map currently stands.

Right, but which states? By how much? That's all arbitrary conjecture making a "6% deviation from generic democrat = Sanders GE performance" parameter pretty meaningless. 6% down from Obama 2012 is something I'm fine with evaluating, but we're introducing meaningless arbitration beyond that.

 

[PBY]

Rubio's performance amongst Hispanics isn't any better than Romney's, according to pretty much all the polling we have. It's incredibly reductive to boil Hispanics down to a single group; the vast majority of Hispanic voters in America are from Mexico and Central America, while Rubio is of Cuban origin. These are cultural communities separated now by 200 years of history, it's like saying that Indian Americans would vote for a Pakistani American because they're both from South Asia. This is just abysmal political analysis and an erasure of the unique minority identity of many Hispanic voters.

It's bad analysis. But you CANNOT deny the optics. He doesn't need a huge swing, just a minor one. And you're burying your head in the sand if you can't see this I'm sorry.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Wait, is that Jeb?? What movie is this?

 

[ivysaur12]

No, she hasn't. CNN shows her down after NH compared to their prior poll, as does YouGov, as does Gravis. Marist shows her slightly up... but Sanders up by an even larger amount. There is precisely 1(!) poll that shows her reducing the gap between her and Sanders in NH, which is Lowell. That's 1 of 5, with 3 of 5 showing her down, and 1 showing her up but Sanders up by more.

Feel free to email Huffingpost then to fix their aggregate!

I don't mean to be snarky. I'm going off what I'm seeing there, which is a slight Hillary bump.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

But he hasn't been attacked from the right! That's the fear of election polling pre convention. We actually haven't seen how Bernie can handle being attacked from the right, while Hillary has spent this entire campaign being attacked as the presumptive nominee.

Yes, and she's done terribly at it. Voters think she is overwhelmingly untrustworthy. She does terribly among self-identified independents. She loses to Rubio in most head to head match-ups before we've even kicked off the campaign season proper, as you say. Her approval ratings have dropped at about 2 percentage points per month since the primaries started. She's gone from being crown princess to struggling against a candidate people wrote off and started at 2% in the polls. She is a terrible campaigner in every sense of the word. She lost 2008 from an overwhelming head start. The Democrats had to spend *huge* amounts of money on her initial Senate election, which was resented even at the time amongst other cash-starved candidates, because they were worried she'd underperform. The entire story of this primary season has been her inability to connect.

Sure, Sanders probably will go down in the campaign season. Clinton would go down further. The attacks in Clinton haven't just worked, they are still working right now and her downwards trajectory is deeply worrying.

 

[PBY]

Crab pls

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I don't think I've ever seen Crab admit to one negative thing about Sanders viability as a candidate.

 

[Gruco]

Rubio's performance amongst Hispanics isn't any better than Romney's, according to pretty much all the polling we have. It's incredibly reductive to boil Hispanics down to a single group; the vast majority of Hispanic voters in America are from Mexico and Central America, while Rubio is of Cuban origin. These are cultural communities separated now by 200 years of history, it's like saying that Indian Americans would vote for a Pakistani American because they're both from South Asia. This is just abysmal political analysis and an erasure of the unique minority identity of many Hispanic voters.

This doesn't preclude them from having mutual policy objectives that Rubio is uniquely well suited to appeal to. Rubio will do better than Romney among Hispanics, I have not doubt about that. He'd also do better than Ted Cruz.

 

[ivysaur12]

Yes, and she's done terribly at it. Voters think she is overwhelmingly untrustworthy. She does terribly among self-identified independents. She loses to Rubio in most head to head match-ups before we've even kicked off the campaign season proper, as you say. Her approval ratings have dropped at about 2 percentage points per month since the primaries started. She's gone from being crown princess to struggling against a candidate people wrote off and started at 2% in the polls. She is a terrible campaigner in every sense of the word. She lost 2008 from an overwhelming head start. The Democrats had to spend *huge* amounts of money on her initial election, which was resented even at the time, because they were worried she'd underperform. The entire story of this primary season has been her inability to connect.

I started to write a pretty long response to this, but I'm on my phone since I'm getting my internet fixed and it's not really worth it.

I fundamentally disagree and believe you're misinterpreting the context for your candidates own benefit. I think no candidate on the right has been truly known on the national stage besides Trump, and certainly not Rubio. I think Bernie is a much worse candidate than Clinton and would do significantly worse than he would in a national election. I think comparing GE polls is junk before the convention, yet here we are.