• 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 |OT11| Well this is exciting

Status
Not open for further replies.

Holmes

Member
That would be pretty amazing. A living creature emitting wifi waves. Sounds like something from a sci-fi novel.
Someone shop Stein's face on this picture.

56607233.jpg
 

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
So, how "okay" is it to weight these polls by substituting the hispanic numbers with Latino Decisions numbers?

Not very, because one is a tracking poll and the other isn't as best as I can tell? Since it's the first week of the LD poll, you can't even look at LD trends either yet. :(

I would ask the fundamental question "Am I doing this because it is more accurate, or because I will personally like the result more?".
 
Probably the biggest number outside of the topline number in the NBC/WSJ poll:

@JohnJHarwood
NBC/WSJ poll, candidate favorability among undecided in two-way race: Clinton 13% positive, 64% negative; Trump 5% positive, 81% negative

We could be looking at Shy Clinton voters.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
God I just went to Clinton's website to quote something for a guy in another thread and its anger inducing how much she has explicitly laid out in terms of plans for everything from housing problems to disability and how nonexistent substantive coverage has been. I mean, every single one of these links to a reasonably detailed set of multi-pronged plans

I'm not naive, obviously very little of this will see the light of day for multiple reasons, not all of which can be blamed on congress, but still

p1WJxc3.png
 
UH Poll: Clinton leads Trump by 10 in Harris County
Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has a comfortable 10-point lead over her Republican rival, Donald Trump, among registered voters in Harris County, according to a new poll released Thursday.

The survey from the University of Houston’s Hobby School of Public Affairs showed Clinton winning 42 percent support to Trump’s 32 percent. Nine percent of respondents said they back Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate, while 2 percent said they support Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

About 15 percent said they were undecided, according to the poll.

Should Clinton carry the county with a double-digit margin, it would mark the widest margin of victory for a Democratic candidate in Harris County since 1964. Harris County, the third largest in the nation, long has been a competitive county during presidential election years. In 2012, President Barack Obama beat Republican challenger Mitt Romney there by nearly 600 votes. Obama edged out GOP nominee John McCain in 2008 by just under 2 percentage points, 50.4 percent to 48.8 percent.
 

Teggy

Member
I'm seeing people saying there will be audiences participating (clapping, etc.) during the debates. I thought that was not the case?
 
This is why it's a lot closer in Texas:

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/...County-poll-9239737.php?cmpid=twitter-desktop

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton has a comfortable 10-point lead over her Republican rival, Donald Trump, among registered voters in Harris County, according to a new poll released Thursday.

The survey from the University of Houston’s Hobby School of Public Affairs showed Clinton winning 42 percent support to Trump’s 32 percent. Nine percent of respondents said they back Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party candidate, while 2 percent said they support Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

About 15 percent said they were undecided, according to the poll.

Should Clinton carry the county with a double-digit margin, it would mark the widest margin of victory for a Democratic candidate in Harris County since 1964. Harris County, the third largest in the nation, long has been a competitive county during presidential election years. In 2012, President Barack Obama beat Republican challenger Mitt Romney there by nearly 600 votes. Obama edged out GOP nominee John McCain in 2008 by just under 2 percentage points, 50.4 percent to 48.8 percent.

EDIT: Beaten like Ted Strickland
 

Cyanity

Banned
God I just went to Clinton's website to quote something for a guy in another thread and its anger inducing how much she has explicitly laid out in terms of plans for everything from housing problems to disability and how nonexistent substantive coverage has been. I mean, every single one of these links to a reasonably detailed set of multi-pronged plans

I'm not naive, obviously very little of this will see the light of day for multiple reasons, not all of which can be blamed on congress, but still

p1WJxc3.png


This more than anything is why Hillary needs to be our next president.
 

Iolo

Member
I believe the Latino Decisions poll overestimated Obama's share of the vote, so I wouldn't be unskewing polls to match it, unless you like disappointment.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
God I just went to Clinton's website to quote something for a guy in another thread and its anger inducing how much she has explicitly laid out in terms of plans for everything from housing problems to disability and how nonexistent substantive coverage has been. I mean, every single one of these links to a reasonably detailed set of multi-pronged plans

I'm not naive, obviously very little of this will see the light of day for multiple reasons, not all of which can be blamed on congress, but still
p1WJxc3.png

There was a well-researched Huffington Post piece linked here earlier in the day about the Clinton camp's policy workshop. In a normal election it would be like bringing an orbiting rail gun to an old fashioned pistols at dawn duel, sadly in this one it's like bringing an orbiting rail gun to a fashion show. According to the article everyone in policy land is shocked her proposals haven't been getting more play considering what's being proposed.
 
In 2012, Harris County had 1,188,585. Let's play a game and give it the same number.

Obama: 586,073
Romney: 587,044

Trump only getting 32% of the vote there would give him 380,347 votes out of Harris County, taking his total down around 200,000. It still wouldn't be anything close to giving Clinton a win in Texas, but it would take the total difference in Texas down to around a million votes if everything else stayed the same.
 
This is why it's a lot closer in Texas:

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/...County-poll-9239737.php?cmpid=twitter-desktop



EDIT: Beaten like Ted Strickland
I believe some folks in Daily Kos Elections were talking about this, rumors that Clinton was up big in Harris County internal polling.

Frankly I think it'd be wise to make a real investment here (as long as it doesn't come at the expense of other states of course). Even if Texas is only a 6-7 point win for Trump then Democrats need to be able to capitalize on that for state and local elections. I don't expect them to send a Democrat to the Senate any time soon but imagine them being able to make headway in the state house or senate. That would bode extremely well for the next redistricting cycle if Democrats had a seat at the table.

Obama lost Texas by double digits in 2008 and Dems still came just one seat shy of tying the state house. Imagine what Clinton making a real effort there would do.
 

Zukkoyaki

Member
I don't think there would be anything scarier for the Republican party than Texas trending purple. If it ever becomes a state that's legitimately in play for Dems... ooooh boy. Hopefully it happens!
 
I don't think there would be anything scarier for the Republican party than Texas trending purple. If it ever becomes a state that's legitimately in play for Dems... ooooh boy. Hopefully it happens!
That's crisis mode for them. They'll absolutely have to do some soul searching and make drastic changes to their messaging.
 
Texas to go blue would require a lot of things already stated, but also the key would be Harris County, like Franklin County in OH, going from swing to blue, and the suburban counties of Austin, which are light red, to go light blue (Hays County, Williamson County). The same needs to happen in Dallas, though those suburbs are a lot redder. Dallas went 57% blue in both 08 and 12. Dems need to get that number in the mid-to-high 60s.

This is all very expensive.

She will lose Texas, but I don't think the county map will make a lot of Texas Republicans happy.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Texas to go blue would require a lot of things already stated, but also the key would be Harris County, like Franklin County in OH, going from swing to blue, and the suburban counties of Austin, which are light red, to go light blue (Hays County, Williamson County). The same needs to happen in Dallas, though those suburbs are a lot redder. Dallas went 57% blue in both 08 and 12. Dems need to get that number in the mid-to-high 60s.

This is all very expensive.

She will lose Texas, but I don't think the county map will make a lot of Texas Republicans happy.

I can't imagine her pumping money into Texas unless Monday is a slaughterhouse and Trump throws a very public bitch fit the next day and doesn't show at the next debate. Even then it's not something I'd do.
 
I can't imagine her pumping money into Texas unless Monday is a slaughterhouse and Trump throws a very public bitch fit the next day and doesn't show at the next debate. Even then it's not something I'd do.

I wouldn't do it either, I'm just imaging what the map -- with no effort -- could look like.
 

Gruco

Banned
Dylan Matthews on the Clinton Foundation
After reviewing foundation documents and talking to numerous people in the philanthropy and global health sectors familiar with its work, I’ve come to the conclusion that the Clinton Foundation is a real charitable enterprise that did enormous good.
This debate has become representative of how the Clinton Foundation is covered more broadly. The value of the organization is almost entirely divorced from actual charitable programming. Stories about the foundation don’t mention what the money that allegedly bought this access was spent on. They don’t distinguish between giving to the Clintons, personally, and giving to their charitable organization.
The media has botched this story. The amount of ink spilled on as-yet-unsubstantiated insinuations that the Clintons sold access through their foundation, as opposed to the foundation’s actual lifesaving work in public health, is ludicrous.

I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that the Clinton Foundation stories have been one of the most disastrous media failings since the run up to the Iraq War. In story after story, from NPR to the NYT to the AP, press have characterized the Clinton Foundation as an entity whose main purpose is enriching the Clintons. They have ignored their own reporting, which has failed to show any improper activity, and instead focused on the presumption that it must exist because of the possibility that it might exist.

Which is all the more amazing when considering Trump is running an illegal slush fund in the form of a charitable org.

And yet a Nexus search for media mentions will show several hundred times more ink on the Clinton Foundation than the Trump Foundation. Other the Fahrenthold at the Post, nobody is even bothering to give his story of flagrantly illegal activity any meaningful resources.

I anticipate I will be salty about this for a good 20 years. It's truly shameful.
 

Anoregon

The flight plan I just filed with the agency list me, my men, Dr. Pavel here. But only one of you!
Dylan Matthews on the Clinton Foundation


I anticipate I will be salty about this for a good 20 years. It's truly shameful.

I don't blame you. It's a disgusting dichotomy that has becoming more and more blatant over the past few weeks/months. Clinton Foundation is as above board as a charity can be but remains a subject of unwarranted scrutiny. Meanwhile, Trump has very sketchy practices with regard to money moving through his charities that would have absolutely sunk Hillary, full-stop, but they don't matter at all. It's fucking maddening.
 

Holmes

Member
Texas to go blue would require a lot of things already stated, but also the key would be Harris County, like Franklin County in OH, going from swing to blue, and the suburban counties of Austin, which are light red, to go light blue (Hays County, Williamson County). The same needs to happen in Dallas, though those suburbs are a lot redder. Dallas went 57% blue in both 08 and 12. Dems need to get that number in the mid-to-high 60s.

This is all very expensive.

She will lose Texas, but I don't think the county map will make a lot of Texas Republicans happy.
In addition to maximizing turnout in Dallas, Houston, Austin, and El Paso, a Democratic victory in Texas goes through Tarrant county (Fort Worth and Arlington). Its margin of victory for McCain and Romney in '08 and '12 were near-identical to their statewide margins, so it's pretty much a bellwether county in that regard. Of course, in a Democratic victory in Texas, I would assume Tarrant county would be more Republican than the statewide average considering such a victory would be on the backs of the cities I mentioned, and along the Rio Grande.
 

Piecake

Member
God I just went to Clinton's website to quote something for a guy in another thread and its anger inducing how much she has explicitly laid out in terms of plans for everything from housing problems to disability and how nonexistent substantive coverage has been. I mean, every single one of these links to a reasonably detailed set of multi-pronged plans

I'm not naive, obviously very little of this will see the light of day for multiple reasons, not all of which can be blamed on congress, but still

p1WJxc3.png

She is also partially at fault for this. They decided pretty early that their main focus would be to de-legitimize Trump as a presidential candidate. And while they have had policy speeches and the like, it certainly wasn't consistent and that messaged wasn't hammered home in an attempt to make it a part of the media narrative.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
She is also partially at fault for this. They decided pretty early that their main focus would be to de-legitimize Trump as a presidential candidate. And while they have had policy speeches and the like, it certainly wasn't consistent and that messaged wasn't hammered home in an attempt to make it a part of the media narrative.

Part of it is her policy speeches haven't been getting covered at all. Go read that Huffington Post piece. There's an example of a huge proposal getting overshadowed by the Trump/Kelly blood thing. They expected all kinds of calls about it, adding extra people to man the phones, and got like one. The policy has been there since jump, it's just not been covered at all.
 
Yea, I normally don't like saying "the media is clearly being bias!" because it feels like making excuses, but the coverage between the two different foundations is disgusting.

Running a highly effective world leading charity should be worthy of praise and used as proof of being an excellent leader, and the media has twisted facts or just outright lied to try and paint it as a liability. Meanwhile, Trump runs a con disguised as a charity and nobody cares or reports on it beyond a couple minor stories.
 

Revolver

Member
Part of it is her policy speeches haven't been getting covered at all. Go read that Huffington Post piece. There's an example of a huge proposal getting overshadowed by the Trump/Kelly blood thing. They expected all kinds of calls about it, adding extra people to man the phones, and got like one. The policy has been there since jump, it's just not been covered at all.

"She's got people that sit in cubicles writing policy all day. It's just a waste of paper.” - Donald Trump
 

Crisco

Banned
Wisconsin is going to be this year's Pennsylvania I think. That state the GOP hinges it's hopes on winning, ends up going to Hillary by 5+.
 
I don't blame you. It's a disgusting dichotomy that has becoming more and more blatant over the past few weeks/months. Clinton Foundation is as above board as a charity can be but remains a subject of unwarranted scrutiny. Meanwhile, Trump has very sketchy practices with regard to money moving through his charities that would have absolutely sunk Hillary, full-stop, but they don't matter at all. It's fucking maddening.

Yeah I'm glad someone finally wrote an extensive article on it. There were legitimate questions to raise about potential conflicts with Clinton as president, but instead of reasonably discussing it , the press went nuclear and will probably end up destroying a lot of the good work the foundation could have done in the future.

From the very beginning, I have basically wanted her to say Fuck you to the media and tell them they can personally go and watch people die if they want the foundation immediately shuttered. The call to have the foundation immediately shut down like it would be some extremely easy process to have some other charity pick up all the work was almost as dumb
 
From the very beginning, I have basically wanted her to say Fuck you to the media and tell them they can personally go and watch people die if they want the foundation immediately shuttered. The call to have the foundation immediately shut down like it would be some extremely easy process to have some other charity pick up all the work was almost as dumb

To see "liberals" who believe they have empathy and care for others sit there and say "it should be closed because of optics" had to be one of the most disappointing things I've seen "liberals" say. People who would actually admit that yes, the foundation should be closed, despite all the good it does, because it "looks" bad.
 
I don't know if he's still in the Clinton circle or not but he's made many surprisingly dumb comments about her. That could suggest he's on the outside looking in now, who knows.

One of the many old party voices who bet the farm on Clinton in 08 and proceeded to spend the next few years shitting on the president while wondering "how come Obama can't relate to white people/how come Obama can't work with republicans/etc."

I wonder what all those guys think now that Hillary is facing the same extremist, far right tantrum. She's not going to find any decent compromises with Paul Ryan. Instead she'll face investigations monthly, misogynist attacks from House members, nonstop brinksmanship on basic issues, etc.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom