nature boy
Member
And spend money on ads talking about her.
We get it Orange Menace is around the corner.
We get it Orange Menace is around the corner.
-
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
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
NYCmetsfan
Banned
This kinda of advice is the worst kind of punditry.
I mean I don't think your wrong, but I don't think you're right. It's meaningless babel that is caused by 24/7 news coverage.
Nobody is making their mind up or going out to vote on that.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
I don't think that was a very useful explanation. The way LV usually works (some exceptions, obviously, YouGOV being an example), is that pollsters say: white non-graduates turnout at 62%, white graduates at 68%, so weight non-graduates at 0.62 and graduates at 0.68. That's not really assigning any group to 0% or 100%. I actually think LV models are likely to favour Clinton, not hurt her, because the marks pollsters use to assign turnout are usually just the turnout rates from 2012. I don't think Clinton enthuses people as much as Obama, so that's worrying to me.
Obviously this varies by pollster - YouGOV asks likelihood to vote questions, although that probably still favours Clinton (there's a really interesting story behind this that had a big impact on British politics if anyone wants to know). Something like Gravis has a ridiculous filter that assumes you will absolutely not vote unless you voted before, which will be biased against Clinton. You have to check the methodology.
Aaron Strife
Banned
I like PPP's way of determining voter likelihood best - ask them if they plan on voting.
A lot of polls that start out as adults or RVs that filter down into LV subsamples do so somewhat arbitrarily, not the least of which is often excluding people who didn't vote in the last presidential election (which means 18-21 are just disregarded by default).
Also I agree with crab. Leave the meme shit to someone with public charisma.
A lot of polls that start out as adults or RVs that filter down into LV subsamples do so somewhat arbitrarily, not the least of which is often excluding people who didn't vote in the last presidential election (which means 18-21 are just disregarded by default).
Also I agree with crab. Leave the meme shit to someone with public charisma.
shinra-bansho
Member
Why are we talking about Bernie Sanders again? Why is J Ann Selzer back in the news. It's like some time loop hell.
Edit: when did Star Wars become a millennial thing. They werent even born when the good ones came out.
Well, it's sadder when you realise they filter so well into the regular narrative that an acute "health episode" became indication that she's dying or something to a third of Democrats.
I like how NeoNazis so completely control the Republican narratives that only 24% of Republicans thought Hillary would live even before she got sick for three days, lol.
Edit: when did Star Wars become a millennial thing. They werent even born when the good ones came out.
nature boy
Member
http://www.latinodecisions.com/blog/2016/09/15/tbt-ld-edition-voters-candidates-and-enthusiasm/
Tldr: Latinos like Clinton and enthusiasm doesn't seem to be an issue.
Tldr: Latinos like Clinton and enthusiasm doesn't seem to be an issue.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Honestly, I actually think it's pretty important. Millennials don't dislike Clinton's policies. They don't trust her to deliver them. When she's there delivering her policies, part of the goal is to raise awareness, and part of the goal is to convince that she'll carry them out. The more genuine she is, the more people will believe her promises. Small things like that make a difference. You don't consciously say "oh, the moment Clinton made a Star Wars joke was the point she lost me", but it forms part of a larger raft of "I don't trust Clinton, she's dishonest and would do anything to get in power. She won't do what she says, why should I vote for her?".
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Trust me, this doesn't work as well as you might hope. This is what British pollsters did. The trouble is that: a) people don't tell the truth, and b) different people tell the truth at different rates. A Conservative voter who rated themselves 8/10 likely to vote was about 1.13x as likely to vote as a Labour voter who rated themselves 8/10 likely to vote. Neither was more than 50% likely to vote. Part of the reason 2015's election polling was so inaccurate was because of "lazy Labour" - a big glut of Labour voters rated themselves as very likely to turn-up, and didn't.
I don't really think there's any way of estimating LV very well, at least not something simple enough to boil down into a formula. As disgustingly annoying as it is to have to say this as an empiricist and psephophile, informed guesswork seems to have the best track record.
Not much to do with the election and politics. And that was last week anyway.
whyamihere
Banned
I like that!!
He ate a two week ban for...well...I'm not sure how to phrase this one without eating one myself...
Aaron Strife
Banned
Hilly wins FL/CO/NV somewhat comfortably I imagine.
Even that bad CNN poll (bad for her) only had Trump up by 1. In a universe that's considerably older and whiter than the probable reality that's not too bad.
shinra-bansho
Member
Temporarily. Because he got riled up talking to deplorables or something. Back to topic.
RustyNails
Member
NYCmetsfan
Banned
This isn't gonna change no matter what she does, they'll just shift the goal posts. This has been her entire career.
I tend to agree with some, that Warren's influence is overrated with young voters.
And Sanders hasn't really modified his stump speech since the primaries, basically just copy-pasting "and that's why we should elect Hillary Clinton as president" at the end of every paragraph, but not really making a case for her.
I hope that changes, talks about how much of the criticism towards her is unwarranted and how young people can't waste their vote. He should also throw in some sympathy to his supporters in there and admit that he too was angry about the primary, but it's time to move on.
hipsterpants
Member
Why don't we wait until the actual debates to worry about how the media will perceive it?
excelsiorlef
Member
Frankly Sanders thus far as proven himself to be useless.
He created a monster and lost control of it.
Aaron Strife
Banned
The media tried to spin Palin's debate performance as a win and the people didn't buy it. They may grade Trump on a curve but the folks waffling on whether they can support Clinton won't.
Captain Pants
Killed by a goddamned Dredgeling
I always thought that when the avatar disappeared it meant it was permanent. Good to know that's not the case.
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy then.
People will declare Trump the winner because the media has already lowered the bar about who will come out winning. And there's much more consensus towards what Trump needs to avoid than what Hillary needs to do.
But I still think HIllary can deliver a knockout to Trump in the first debate, but it won't be easy.
EDIT: And it's a media myth that Palin "won" the debate. She didn't and as polls from 2008 prove, Obama and Biden widen their lead after the VP debate. She didn't bomb in the debate, but the Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson interviews had already done much of the damage, but it didn't convince anyone that Palin wasn't a dumbass.
Trump won't convince anyone that he isn't a dumbass, only that, possibly, he wasn't horrible in the debate.
To me, the most consequential debate of the last 4 elections continues to be the first Romney-Obama debate, because it really appeared that Obama didn't want the job anymore, and that shook (just like Hillary) his supporters to the core. How can they fight for someone who isn't even trying to fight? or can't?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
If it isn't going to change, Clinton won't win the Senate. So it better change. Like, I don't know why you're painting this so black and white. Yes, some people will literally never vote for Clinton even if she was the return of Jesus. Some will vote for her even if they have to saw off their own foot to do so. However, there's a big old raft of people in-between, who aren't sure whether they want to vote for her or not. One of the main qualities that makes them unsure is that fact Clinton doesn't seem genuine. If Clinton therefore doesn't exacerbate that perception, she increases the likelihood they vote for her.
Her entire career has been this way because, if we're being blunt, she has always been very poor at coming across as authentic. Some of that might be because she's a woman, fine, but given that both Palin and Warren were capable of selling themselves as authentic (and I have no idea how Palin did that...), some of that is on her, and she has to do something about that. Otherwise we're going to have lame duck Clinton.
shinra-bansho
Member
Was Trump's rambling bullshit at the CoC forum well recieved by the public. Because if it was well...
A) Yes - it's a good reminder that these things matter, and people aren't just going to "move the goal posts" when it comes to Clinton. But that also means accepting that you have a severely flawed candidate who needs to figure out what kind of campaign she wants to run.
B) Yep. Barring something crazy from left field happening, I don't think Trump gets much closer than this.
Your assertion about who reads this thread is not 100% inaccurate.
nature boy
Member
Latinos have consistently been good news for the Clinton campaign, gotv will seal the deal where it matters (Florida)
Yep, the biggest problem with transparency is there's no solution. People see what they want to see and ignore what doesn't fit their narrative.
I agree but it already seems like everyone is setting the stage that is Trump is just up and just says things that aren't crazy it'll be ok.
Seems people are expecting the moderators won't do their jobs and follow up.
Mackenzie 92
Member
Is Trump really ahead in Florida, Ohio and Iowa?
GutsOfThor
Member
Pretty much how I feel. Fuck them......
Based on the shit I've seen from millennials, in my experience they are the worst generation in the history of generations.
Ehhh doubtful. Prob Ohio and maybe Iowa, but we're in the MOE
Joe Shlabotnik
Banned
I was gonna say, Palin got a We Try Harder award from the media and nobody gave a fuck.
Incidentally, don't pay any attention to snap polls or Chris Matthews hot takes or focus groups cybernetically enhanced to monitor their endorphin production throughout the debate.
Debate reaction needs a day or three to marinate.
RustyNails
Member
It's going to be fun to watch and we're definitely gonna get to see him battered. But for a true K-O, Hillary needs a flawless execution. She'd need the facts ready. And when Trump responds with "She's lying. I never said that.", She needs the date time and place of when he said it to factcheck him, because the mod is sure as shit not going to.
Thinking about it more, I'm starting to think Trump is definitely going to pull a Romney and try to pivot in the first debate. Obama was caught off-gaurd and lost. Hillary needs to prepare for a subdued Trump with new on the fly policy proposals coming at her. He's going to even allow for amnesty on the stage, because he will go the next day on Fox News and come out against it. There's a whole lot of goinf to be "that was my old plan, this is my new one".
That would be baby boomers.
BlastProcessing
Member
First of all Money Laundering is a serious felony. It's inflammatory language that goes far beyond the subject at hand. Second the idea that money raised in states like California and New York should be transferred to other state races by way of the DNC is not a massive subversion. That Politico article is sourced from State party members who are always going to want more money.
Dig away. There is a reason why Clinton successfully delivered her voters to Obama. There is a reason why Obama hired Clinton and why he is giving her his full throated support currently. She ran a hard campaign, but she didn't cross the line. She never called him unfit or unqualified for the job. SHe argued that she was more fit and more qualified. That is an important distinction.
Not even a little bit. If anything, Russia hacking the DNC proved just how much the DNC bent over backwards to make the election a fair contest. Sanders called the validity of the voting process into question. There has been absolutely no evidence that the system was rigged in any way.
There is a massive distinction between implicit and explicit. If you think otherwise then there isn't much to say on the subject. I don't think Clinton was benefiting from state parties, in fact it is the exact opposite. State Parties are benefiting from Clinton. She is headlining fundraisers for them and somehow that's a bad thing? The fact that the money flows to the DNC so that it can be applied in the most effective way possible is an example of efficient management.
I have no idea how you could say the DNC was biased towards Clinton when Sanders was the one who stole DNC data to use against Clinton and was in no way punished for it. It's absurd.
DWS had to go for many reasons. The Clinton camp had wanted her gone for months and months. It was Obama that balked at removing her because he didn't want to deal with intra party politics.
I am holding Sanders to Pottery Barn rules. He broke it, he owns it. He absolutely did cross lines and he doesn't just get to fuck off and not deal with the fact that his actions have substantially hurt the chances of a Democratic Senate. It's hypocritical and, sadly, the kind of thing I have come to expect from him.
It's not about unemployment per se. The argument is that it cements a substantive difference between male and female applicants. It's not about direct coordination between employers. It would just be a natural market action.
Baby boomers have that on lock.
I know right! Screw that generation that had to fight in an 11 year long war, and then fought for equality for women and fought for gay marriage...screw them! Yeah! Let's go with that generation that voted for GWB and is predominantly voting for Trump! Yeah!
nature boy
Member
Ohio and Iowa? Likely, dems come home late.
Florida? On election day with his Latino numbers he stands no chance of winning.
shinra-bansho
Member
The "genuine" and "authentic" crap in politics is basically an impossible bind.
Because they're meaningless.
Dubya was a genuine idiot. John Edwards was a genuine folksy secret scumbag.
She's genuinely a wonk who's more personable in small crowds. She's authentically guarded.
That she got pneumonia didn't want to make it a big thing and kept on working is the most Hillary Clinton thing ever.
So she needs to get better at faking what people think is authentic. Or get a personality transplant.
Because they're meaningless.
Dubya was a genuine idiot. John Edwards was a genuine folksy secret scumbag.
She's genuinely a wonk who's more personable in small crowds. She's authentically guarded.
That she got pneumonia didn't want to make it a big thing and kept on working is the most Hillary Clinton thing ever.
So she needs to get better at faking what people think is authentic. Or get a personality transplant.
BlastProcessing
Member
This just showed up on my wife's Facebook feed and I love every godamned word of it.
Obama wasn't just caught off guard, Obama was unprepared. If he was simply not ready for Romney 2.0 (no excuse for that, as they telegraphed their "etch a sketch" strategy months in advance) he would've reacted with bewilderment at Romney's change of positions, but he didn't react at all. He simply kept repeating attacks against his old positions and some boilerplate policy lines.
nature boy
Member
Hart Research:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked