• 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 2016 |OT10| Jill Stein Inflatable Love Doll

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ross leading NC-SEN is encouraging. I suspect the big three statewide elections in NC this year break the same way (Clinton, Cooper, Ross).

McGinty tied with Toomey is meh but could just be an outlier.

And solid leads for Clinton, too.
 
this one seems nonsensical:

Yet a survey across 11 battleground states suggests the race may still be up for grabs. Among likely voters Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump by only two points, 42% to 40%. 7% go for Gary Johnson and again 2% for Jill Stein. The states included in the poll are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin. Following the Democratic National Convention, Hillary Clinton led Donald Trump by 43% to 41%. Gary Johnson has gained one point since late July, while Jill Stein's support is unchanged.

The article says she's up 8 in PA, and 4 in NC. Just about every other survey has given her wider margins in VA and CO than PA- and clinton just pulled a bunch of advertising from CO recently IIRC because the lead was so massive.

Michigan went +10 obama in the last two elections, its barely a battleground.

Ohio and florida have been floating around +5 Clinton over the last few months also.

To get down to "only" a 2 point lead given all that, Trump would have to be leading substantially in one of those battleground states, and I can't think of a single poll anywhere that does so. There's something strange with the methodology that leads them to that conclusion.

also:

In Pennsylvania, Democrat Kathy McGinty is tied with Sen. Pat Toomey at 39% among likely voters. Fully 20% remain undecided. Worrying for Toomey, he earns only 1% support among African-Americans in the state, against McGinty's 69%, while 30% are still in the undecided column.

one out of 3 African American voters in PA are "undecided" in McGinty vs. Toomey? Get the fuck out of here
 
Lol Toomey only getting 1% of black voters. Hilarious.

The fact that a heavy portion of the undecideds in PA Senate are black bodes well for McGinty, I would figure.
 
I hope Trump storms out of one of the debates after a hard question.

Would be such a bad look.

No. What we need is for Trump to be caught in a moment where he shows he knows nothing about politics. Angles for this would be:

- making Trump say that he thinks a wall can go right on top of Texas/Mexico border (which is impossible because that's the lower Rio Grande)

- making Trump claim that the Central Park 5 are still guilty

- making Trump accidentally say that he would support Assad (by asking if he would support everyone fighting ISIS and then bringing up that Assad is fighting both innocents and ISIS)

- making Trump say something about Russia that Manafort convinced him was true

- making Trump have to face the fact that violence has been declining over the past 2 decades

- Asking Trump to explain what he thinks is in the first amendment.

- Asking Trump to specify which statements he regrets making.

- Asking Trump what he thinks about the Brock Turner case.

- Asking Trump whether or not he thinks the Alt-Right specifically is respectful.

- Asking Trump what he thinks we should have done differently with Lybia.

- Asking Trump why he thinks we have NATO

- Asking Trump if he thinks we should do more international investments like the Marshall Plan

- Tricking Trump into saying that we should have destabilized Iran.

- Asking Trump if he feels that states should have the right to ban gay marriage.

- Asking Trump if how he thinks we won the Cold War.

- Tricking Trump into stating classified information on his own. (Obviously this one would be nearly impossible without looking like someone encouraging it)

- Tricking Trump into stating he doesn't care about the Geneva Convention.

- Asking Trump in what cases he is okay with abortion and if he says the standard GOP answer of "only in cases of rape or invest" ask him for details such as whether or not it would only be allowed after the rapist is convicted.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
- Tricking Trump into saying he supports slavery by asking if he supports the 3rd amendment
This would be such a cheap gotcha and would rightfully be criticized as gamey, but it would be soooooooooooo satisfying

EDIT: Although I don't understand how this works, isn't that just about quartering soldiers?
 

Grief.exe

Member
Can I rant about how the media in this country is absolute garbage?

On one side, you have the massive conservative media (that gets higher ratings than all other media combined) consisting of Fox News, Drudge, Breitbart, and endless talk-radio drones whining on a daily basis about the "liberal media" being unfair all while being the biggest hypocrites in the country. The whole "The liberal media is against us!" is the most successful brainwashing of the public done by a political party probably ever.

On the other side, you have places like NPR, CNN, MSNBC, etc., who for the most part try to provide coverage for both but don't go anywhere near as hard as the right-wing media does (well, maybe MSNBC does at times). As a result, there is a massive gulf in coverage between the two. On one side, you get about 95% of the coverage of the opposite candidate as negative. On the other side, you get about 50-50. This absolutely destroys the public perception of the democratic candidate, as we're seeing with Hillary.

I mean, how is the Trump pay-for-play thing not being blown up? HOW? That has the potential to be one of the biggest election scandals in decades, and they completely ignore it in favor of something the FBI clearly states isn't a big issue? What in the world is the justification for this?

Clicks and ratings supersede journalism in this case.

No. What we need is for Trump to be caught in a moment where he shows he knows nothing about politics. Angles for this would be:

- making Trump say that he thinks a wall can go right on top of Texas/Mexico border (which is impossible because that's the lower Rio Grande)

- making Trump claim that the Central Park 5 are still guilty

- making Trump accidentally say that he would support Assad (by asking if he would support everyone fighting ISIS and then bringing up that Assad is fighting both innocents and ISIS)

- making Trump say something about Russia that Manafort convinced him was true

- making Trump have to face the fact that violence has been declining over the past 2 decades

- Tricking Trump into saying he supports slavery by asking if he supports the 3rd amendment

- Asking Trump to explain what he thinks is in the first amendment.

- Asking Trump to specify which statements he regrets making.

- Asking Trump what he thinks about the Brock Turner case.

- Asking Trump whether or not he thinks the Alt-Right specifically is respectful.

- Asking Trump what he thinks we should have done differently with Lybia.

- Asking Trump why he thinks we have NATO

- Asking Trump if he thinks we should do more international investments like the Marshall Plan

- Tricking Trump into saying that we should have destabilized Iran.

- Asking Trump if he feels that states should have the right to ban gay marriage.

- Asking Trump if how he thinks we won the Cold War.

- Tricking Trump into stating classified information on his own. (Obviously this one would be nearly impossible without looking like someone encouraging it)

- Tricking Trump into stating he doesn't care about the Geneva Convention.

- Asking Trump in what cases he is okay with abortion and if he says the standard GOP answer of "only in cases of rape or invest" ask him for details such as whether or not it would only be allowed after the rapist is convicted.

I don't know much about Lester, is he going to be able to ask the tough questions?
 
This would be such a cheap gotcha and would rightfully be criticized as gamey, but it would be soooooooooooo satisfying

EDIT: Although I don't understand how this works, isn't that just about quartering soldiers?
Yeah it is. I'm thinking of a different amendment. Isn't one of the amendments about the 3/5th clause?

Edit: Never mind it's a section of one of the articles.
 

benjipwns

Banned
What better way to show the importance of policy in the debates in 2016's FACT BASED CAMPAIGN to ask if someone supports the 3/5ths clause.

The correct answer is no, slaves shouldn't have been counted at all.
 

Makai

Member
What better way to show the importance of policy in the debates in 2016's FACT BASED CAMPAIGN to ask if someone supports the 3/5ths clause.

The correct answer is no, slaves shouldn't have been counted at all.
Northerners. No brainer.
 
Lol Toomey only getting 1% of black voters. Hilarious.

This makes sense when you consider that black voters are almost entirely democratic in this state. Trump being the republican nominee is going to make them run away from republicans across the board.

The fact that a heavy portion of the undecideds in PA Senate are black bodes well for McGinty, I would figure.

they aren't undecided at all, which is the thing. Most black voters in the state live in the southeastern portion, clustered in Philadelphia and some of the inner suburbs. a smaller amount in Pittsburgh, Allentown, and Harrisburg.

Pa%2017.png


Philadelphia is SO hostile to republicans that they usually don't even bother campaigning here. Implying that a full 1 in 3 "Dont know" if they're supporting the democratic or republican senate candidate is just bizarre. NO republican senate candidate has ever gotten anywhere near 1/3 support from black voters- toomey would be lucky to break the 5% mark.
 
The shitty thing about Central Park 5 is that it only really resonates with groups Trump is losing terribly with already. Unless you frame it well, white suburbanites probably don't care about minorities being falsely accused.
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
What better way to show the importance of policy in the debates in 2016's FACT BASED CAMPAIGN to ask if someone supports the 3/5ths clause.

The correct answer is no, slaves shouldn't have been counted at all.

Yeah I took it out. But the point was that they would be ways for Hillary to prove during a debate that Trump doesn't know anything detailed about US politics.
 
The battleground tracker looks closer because they are adding redder states like Georgia to it now.

they don't mention that in the article- in fact they limit the battleground states to 11, and spell out exactly which ones they are.

The states included in the poll are Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Michigan, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Wisconsin.

what they're using for their "battleground" polling (which is interviewing the same small sample of voters repeatedly over a number of weeks) doesn't line up with their traditional polling. it's garbage, and the race isn't that close.
 
The shitty thing about Central Park 5 is that it only really resonates with groups Trump is losing terribly with already. Unless you frame it well, white suburbanites probably don't care about minorities being falsely accused.

Well it will definitely look bad when the moderator has to point out that the Central Park 5 were exonerated by both DNA evidence and a genuine confession from the guy who actually committed the crime.

It would feed the narrative that Trump is a "Lynch Mob" kind of guy.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Well it will definitely look bad when the moderator has to point out that the Central Park 5 were exonerated by both DNA evidence and a genuine confession from the guy who actually committed the crime.

It would feed the narrative that Trump is a "Lynch Mob" kind of guy.
"For someone who desperately wants to move on from anyone looking at her endless scandals, Corrupt Hillary sure wants to bring up discredited smears from my past."
 

Plinko

Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
this one seems nonsensical:



The article says she's up 8 in PA, and 4 in NC. Just about every other survey has given her wider margins in VA and CO than PA- and clinton just pulled a bunch of advertising from CO recently IIRC because the lead was so massive.

Michigan went +10 obama in the last two elections, its barely a battleground.

Ohio and florida have been floating around +5 Clinton over the last few months also.

To get down to "only" a 2 point lead given all that, Trump would have to be leading substantially in one of those battleground states, and I can't think of a single poll anywhere that does so. There's something strange with the methodology that leads them to that conclusion.

Yeah, I'm not getting that, either. I guess if each state shifted a couple percent toward Trump (like some polls have been showing) it could push toward him a little bit. Wisconsin's latest poll showed a big Clinton lead. New Hampshire, maybe? Iowa? I thought New Hampshire was clearly in Clinton territory.

AZ, CO, FL, GA, IA, MI, NC, NH, NV, OH, PA, VA, WI

Ah, that'll do it. Iowa, Georgia, and Nevada.
 
AZ, CO, FL, GA, IA, MI, NC, NH, NV, OH, PA, VA, WI

ah, ok. I was looking at the older article which used 11, not 13. my bad. So arizona and GA knock it down to +2?

I'm still calling that one suspect.

edit: wait a minute, I can't find the quote in the article at all now. it looks like they originally cited the battleground states as 11, then updated it.
 
"For someone who desperately wants to move on from anyone looking at her endless scandals, Corrupt Hillary sure wants to bring up discredited smears from my past."

But again, the Central Park 5 stuff wouldn't be a smear. It would be yet another horrible action that Trump still hasn't apologized for.

If Trump denies, the moderator will be forced to point out the facts about the Central Park 5.
 

Crisco

Banned
So yeah, nothing has changed. PA, VA, CO and NH solid blue = game over. Hillary doesn't need NV, IA, OH, or FL. 273 to win!
 
I'm guessing IA brings it down as well.

IA was in there originally. Only AZ and GA were added- and the margin didn't change.

The 11 original states post DNC had clinton up 43 to 41.

They've updated it to 13 to include AZ and GA (which lean red) and the margin is still 2 points- 42 to 40.

I can't see how that makes any sense at all. That would mean her lead got a lot wider among the original 11 "battleground" states that it was post DNC.
 

benjipwns

Banned
But again, the Central Park 5 stuff wouldn't be a smear. It would be yet another horrible action that Trump still hasn't apologized for.

If Trump denies, the moderator will be forced to point out the facts about the Central Park 5.
Has the Trump campaign agreed to allow the moderators to interject like that?
 
But again, the Central Park 5 stuff wouldn't be a smear. It would be yet another horrible action that Trump still hasn't apologized for.

If Trump denies, the moderator will be forced to point out the facts about the Central Park 5.

He not only didn't apologize, he attacked them still, and basically said it's a disgrace they were awarded a settlement.
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
I think the only way Hillary loses is if something happens that pushes a weak blue state red, maybe even one you don't expect like Wisconsin. Probably something that depresses turnout, like some damaging email that shows her saying fuck black people or something. That or she really flubs the debates. But she does so much prep wonky work that it's hard to believe that's possible.
 
IA was in there originally. Only AZ and GA were added- and the margin didn't change.

The 11 original states post DNC had clinton up 43 to 41.

They've updated it to 13 to include AZ and GA (which lean red) and the margin is still 2 points- 42 to 40.

I can't see how that makes any sense at all. That would mean her lead got a lot wider among the original 11 "battleground" states that it was post DNC.

PDF has IA: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...nt/otjmya1ff7/Battleground_final_20160904.pdf

Guessing their sample is a bit pro-Trump, at least in some states.
 

Crisco

Banned
I think the only way Hillary loses is if something happens that pushes a weak blue state red, maybe even one you don't expect like Wisconsin. Probably something that depresses turnout, like some damaging email that shows her saying fuck black people or something. That or she really flubs the debates. But she does so much prep wonky work that it's hard to believe that's possible.

She would have to sprout horns and start breathing fire at this point. It's not happening.
 
PDF has IA: https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.n...nt/otjmya1ff7/Battleground_final_20160904.pdf

Guessing their sample is a bit pro-Trump, at least in some states.

I'm saying Iowa was among the 11 states originally in the battleground sample to begin with. it wasn't added.

This month it was updated to 13, to add AZ and GA. The margin didn't change. That would mean that hillary's lead in the original 11 states (including IA) would have to be larger than it was post DNC for that to be true.
The battleground polling doesn't make sense when taken in context with the state by state polling.

Guessing their sample is a bit pro-Trump, at least in some states.

Looking into the polling, they're undersampling Hispanics by a bit and oversampling white voters. they're 6% of the poll with white voters at 76.
the 2012 voting pool was 10% hispanic and 72% white.

That would probably account for it.
 
What better way to show the importance of policy in the debates in 2016's FACT BASED CAMPAIGN to ask if someone supports the 3/5ths clause.

The correct answer is no, slaves shouldn't have been counted at all.

What's funny is this debate was the exact reverse of an earlier debate during, I think, the formation of the Articles of Confederacy, in which the South wanted slaves to not be counted for the purposes of taxation, while the North wanted them to be. Slaves had Schrodinger's humanity.
 
I'm saying Iowa was among the 11 states originally in the battleground sample to begin with. it wasn't added.

This month it was updated to 13, to add AZ and GA. The margin didn't change. That would mean that hillary's lead in the original 11 states (including IA) would have to be larger than it was post DNC for that to be true.
The battleground polling doesn't make sense when taken in context with the state by state polling.

Looking into the polling, they're undersampling Hispanics by a bit and oversampling white voters. they're 6% of the poll with white voters at 76.
the 2012 voting pool was 10% hispanic and 72% white.

That would probably account for it.

Yeah the sampling looks a bit off, and the previous tracker was before the Khan controversy, but I wouldn't put much weight in that 13-state poll. The NC and PA polls are far more important.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom