• 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 |OT12| The last days of the Republic

Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
Calling this a winnable election is missing the point, which is that the GOP has been unable to thread the big money / libertarian / Fox News / breitbart / evangelical needle in a post-Bush world. There is no candidate that can do that.

You can say it would be closer if some imaginary candidate were running instead, but all of them -- ALL OF THEM -- are unable to thread that needle. Either they're too aligned with money which means they can't go full-Trump so they lose the Breitbart vote, or they're too fucking evangelical so they lose the suburban Fox News vote. Nobody is threading that needle. You can see it surface with McCain + Palin, you can see it with Romney + Paul, and you can see it now with Trump + Pence.

This was never a winnable election.
 
B

Basileus777

Member
Cyanity said:
Call me naive, but I have a feeling some of the high profile GOP members who have grown sick of Trump over the past year might actually be willing to work with Clinton, since she's actually...y'know...sane?
Click to expand...

I think it depends a lot on how bad the damage ends up being downticket. Ryan with a narrow House majority is going to operate much differently than in one where he still holds a 20 seat advantage.

PantherLotus said:
Calling this a winnable election is missing the point, which is that the GOP has been unable to thread the big money / libertarian / Fox News / breitbart / evangelical needle in a post-Bush world. There is no candidate that can do that.

You can say it would be closer if some imaginary candidate were running instead, but all of them -- ALL OF THEM -- are unable to thread that needle. Either they're too aligned with money which means they can't go full-Trump so they lose the Breitbart vote, or they're too fucking evangelical so they lose the suburban Fox News vote. Nobody is threading that needle. You can see it surface with McCain + Palin, you can see it with Romney + Paul, and you can see it now with Trump + Pence.

This was never a winnable election.
Click to expand...
It's not missing the point when the point was that their coalition is unsustainable and that the party needs to reform. People are jumping on Black Mamba and ignoring what he said to start all of this.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
Black Mamba said:
It will all depend how they go about this. But I think it's weird to think about 2020 because, assuming you don't put up a piece of shit like Trump, most of what matters is the economy and some foreign policy and that's way too far out to project right now.

If somehow the Dems capture the House this election, things could be very good for her in 2020.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. I guess I'm thinking fundamentals (4 terms in a row of a Dem) + what presidencies generally do (makes folks less popular initially).

Iolo said:
Weren't those emails from a Bernie supporter to Podesta?
Click to expand...

Maybe I misread them, but I was pretty sure those were from Podesta?
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
Roland_Gunner said:
I think you're underestimating how much danger Obama was in four years ago. Before Sandy hit he was probably on track to win by 2 to 2.5 points. A Republican candidate not bogged down with Romney's history on immigration and the 47% stuff could definetly have made that up. Obama had to run a great campaign, get some luck, and have Romney hurt himself in key areas to even get a 3.5% win.
Click to expand...

No. Everyone from the campaign even said their internals didn't change with the 47% or Obama's first debate.

What public polling is measuring, in actuality, is enthusiasm. Hillary isn't up 10 right now if everyone votes. It's an enthusiasm gap being shown.

Obama was never losing in 2012 and I was steadfast about this all year that year. Sandy did nothing, too. That election ended at the conventions when Obama shored up the coalition.


Reminder: Romney did not actually gain any votes. When you figure in population growth, Romney basically got the raw vote totals of McCain. Obama simply lost of voters (they stayed home). Nothing more.
 
I

Iolo

Member
Speaking of emails, I like this article on the NYT

Clinton Emails Reveal Concerns Over Rivals

By AMY CHOZICK, NICHOLAS CONFESSORE, STEVE EDER, YAMICHE ALCINDOR and FARAH STOCKMAN 4:37 PM ET
Click to expand...

Important enough to devote 5 authors to

Cybit said:
Maybe I misread them, but I was pretty sure those were from Podesta?
Click to expand...

Could be. I had just read that here, I wasn't interested enough anymore to go read more leaked emails.
 
V

Vahagn

Member
Seriously man. Obama's a transformative candidate and all but the country was SO much worse off in 2012 than it is now.

Romney botched that election horribly because he ran as the anti-Obama and literally spent the entire election saying "I'll tell you my plans after the election".

Romney is a lot of things, but lacking intellect/solutions/ideas is not one of them.
 
B

banefirelord

Banned
Could someone explain to me the difference between internal and external polling and why internals are (seemingly) more accurate and less likely to bounce all over the place?
 
M

Manmademan

Member
PantherLotus said:
Calling this a winnable election is missing the point, which is that the GOP has been unable to thread the big money / libertarian / Fox News / breitbart / evangelical needle in a post-Bush world. There is no candidate that can do that.

You can say it would be closer if some imaginary candidate were running instead, but all of them -- ALL OF THEM -- are unable to thread that needle. Either they're too aligned with money which means they can't go full-Trump so they lose the Breitbart vote, or they're too fucking evangelical so they lose the suburban Fox News vote. Nobody is threading that needle. You can see it surface with McCain + Palin, you can see it with Romney + Paul, and you can see it now with Trump + Pence.

This was never a winnable election.
Click to expand...

Even bush BARELY beat out Gore in 2000, thanks to Florida tomfoolery while losing the popular vote.

And Bush carried about 35% of the hispanic vote that year to pull that off.

The GOP has dug themselves such a deep hole with that group it's never getting that high again for a very, very long time.
 
B

Black Mamba

Member
banefirelord said:
Could someone explain to me the difference between internal and external polling and why internals are (seemingly) more accurate and less likely to bounce all over the place?
Click to expand...

internals go very in depth to figure out who exactly will be voting and how. And often, in swing states, I mean that by a person's name. Joe Smith will vote X. Wanda Johnson will vote Y.

They're not just the same type of poll an independent pollster does.
 
G

GoldenEye 007

Member
Vahagn said:
Seriously man. Obama's a transformative candidate and all but the country was SO much worse off in 2012 than it is now.

Romney botched that election horribly because he ran as the anti-Obama and literally spent the entire election saying "I'll tell you my plans after the election".

Romney is a lot of things, but lacking intellect/solutions/ideas is not one of them.
Click to expand...

And that is mostly all on the shit tier GOP. They vowed in 2008 before Obama even took office that they would do whatever in their power to block Obama's initiatives at whatever cost. I'll take that as them being shook they'd have to even think about working with a black man. And a black man more important than them.
 
J

Joeytj

Banned
banefirelord said:
Could someone explain to me the difference between internal and external polling and why internals are (seemingly) more accurate and less likely to bounce all over the place?
Click to expand...

"Internals" are the polls the campaigns conduct for themselves, they don't release them to the public (unless they're really good for them).

Public or "external" polling is what you see on the news and what FiveThirtyEight uses. They're simply companies that sell their services to media outlets, organizations, political parties, etc. (sometimes they do "internal" polling too).

Internals aren't necessarily more accurate, but campaigns usually have a lot more data on hand, about who exactly are their supporters, the registered voters, undecideds, etc., so they can use that data to create more accurate polling, in theory. They also poll a lot more than public pollster (they can afford it). I think both the Clinton campaign, the DNC and RNC (don't know if the Trump campaign) have several daily tracking polls too they look at, and the Clinton campaign has a team of data analyst looking at demographics and the constant and instant movements of the campaign.

Clinton basically inherited Obama's data crunching team from 2012, which was supposedly even more accurate than Nate Silver's (if that means much for this election).

EDIT: yeah, this too

internals go very in depth to figure out who exactly will be voting and how. And often, in swing states, I mean that by a person's name. Joe Smith will vote X. Wanda Johnson will vote Y.
Click to expand...
 
B

banefirelord

Banned
Black Mamba said:
internals go very in depth to figure out who exactly will be voting and how. And often, in swing states, I mean that by a person's name. Joe Smith will vote X. Wanda Johnson will vote Y.

They're not just the same type of poll an independent pollster does.
Click to expand...

Thanks...so would it be fair to characterize it less as a sampled extrapolation and more along the lines of a census?
 
T

thefro

Member
banefirelord said:
Could someone explain to me the difference between internal and external polling and why internals are (seemingly) more accurate and less likely to bounce all over the place?
Click to expand...

This is a pretty good article from Wired from a few months ago talking about the level of detail that Obama 2012 (and Clinton 2016) are using in their analytics departments.

Wired said:
Back in 2012, Wagner, a bespectacled former economic consultant, and Shor, a math prodigy who started college at 13, were the driving forces behind the Obama campaign’s 54-member analytics team, which worked in an area nicknamed the Cave and became famous for bringing Moneyball-­style analysis to politics. Their signature product was the Golden Report, a daily rundown of the presidential race reflecting the team’s 62,000 nightly computer simulations of how the electoral map might unfold in November.

The Golden Report was the campaign’s most precious secret, delivered straight to the campaign manager and a small number of other leaders. They even kept the Cave physically segregated to ensure that no other staff knew the internal predic­tions. Obama’s strat­egists based nearly all their tactical decisions on the report’s probabilistic estimates of which states were in play, using them to figure out where to allocate staff and advertising dollars.Going into the summer of 2012, Michigan had been a solidly safe state for Obama. But that June, public polling showed him dropping by 10 points, putting Michigan within Rom­ney’s reach. Romney’s campaign responded by pouring mil­lions of dollars into the state. But the Cave’s models, based on historical data and daily voter contacts by campaign volunteers, found support for the president had dropped only slightly; the public polls, they calculated, were under­counting Democrats.

The Obama campaign faced an agonizing decision: scramble or hold steady. The brass were prepared to spend as much as $20 million on advertising and get-out-the-vote efforts, but Wagner’s team recommended against that. “It was a big, strategic campaign decision,” Shor recalls. “Should we trust our polls? We’re right and everyone else is wrong?” Ulti­mately the campaign listened. “We ended up being right. That single decision paid for the entire analytics depart­ment,” Shor says. “People generally talk about polling problems as the margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent. No, the difference between good polling and bad is wasting millions in a state that’s not competitive.”
Click to expand...
 
M

Manmademan

Member
banefirelord said:
Thanks...so would it be fair to characterize it less as a sampled extrapolation and more along the lines of a census?
Click to expand...

no, it's still a poll. but there's a lot more data in those, and they can tweak questions to find issues that are sensitive and worth pushing, or manipulate data to imply a candidate is stronger than they actually are for fundraising purposes.

Generally they're rosier scenarios than a standard poll, because the party can design them that way for any number of reasons.

If internal polls are showing chaos no matter what the party says, it's definitely "time to panic" time.
 
C

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
PantherLotus said:
Calling this a winnable election is missing the point, which is that the GOP has been unable to thread the big money / libertarian / Fox News / breitbart / evangelical needle in a post-Bush world. There is no candidate that can do that.

You can say it would be closer if some imaginary candidate were running instead, but all of them -- ALL OF THEM -- are unable to thread that needle. Either they're too aligned with money which means they can't go full-Trump so they lose the Breitbart vote, or they're too fucking evangelical so they lose the suburban Fox News vote. Nobody is threading that needle. You can see it surface with McCain + Palin, you can see it with Romney + Paul, and you can see it now with Trump + Pence.

This was never a winnable election.
Click to expand...

See...that's not true. Three big decisions helped Trump win this nomination - I think people forget that Trump won with under 50% of the GOP primary voters voting for him before everyone else dropped out.

1) If the GOP used the primary nomination rules the Democrats did, Trump probably isn't the nominee (as it goes to a contested convention, where his lack of ground game would have done him in to Cruz).

2) The GOP actually coalesces around a candidate immediately rather than falls prey to game theory by having too many candidates sitting around too long. This is a function of poor RNC leadership and not getting someone who can sort of bully others around (they expected the Bushes to do this, instead of doing it themselves). If it comes down to Trump vs one other GOP candidate - Trump loses. Especially that if you coalesce around a candidate, Christie doesn't take out Rubio, and if you do it fast enough, Trump maybe doesn't take out Bush - but we're going down the counter-factual rabbit hole at that point.

3) The GOP decides to try to take out Trump initially instead of focusing on Cruz. (Once again, falls on GOP leadership, primarily the RNC). People forgot that the GOP leadership went after Cruz for months before realizing that Trump was a legitimate threat.

Any / all of those things would have probably ended Trump's candidacy.
 
B

BlastProcessing

Member
@FoxNews
O'Reilly: At least 3 media orgs have 'ordered employees to destroy Trump'
Click to expand...
Anyone notice how Papa Bear was cooler on Trump before he was accused of Sexual Assault? Guess Bill finally found something in Trump he could admire...
 
A

anaron

Member
sturgboski said:
OK MSNBC at one of the watch parties with undecided millennials one girl basically says it's like chosing the best of the worst or something to that affect. Girl next her shut that shit down immediately saying it's not even close, that if you do any looking Hillary is the way better candidate that, while she wishes it was Bernie, she's voting for Hillary. First girl looked thrown off for having her bullshit logic shutdown.
Click to expand...

omg is a YouTube link of this?
 
B

BlastProcessing

Member
Cybit said:
See...that's not true. Three big decisions helped Trump win this nomination - I think people forget that Trump won with under 50% of the GOP primary voters voting for him before everyone else dropped out.

1) If the GOP used the primary nomination rules the Democrats did, Trump probably isn't the nominee (as it goes to a contested convention, where his lack of ground game would have done him in to Cruz).

2) The GOP actually coalesces around a candidate immediately rather than falls prey to game theory by having too many candidates sitting around too long. This is a function of poor RNC leadership and not getting someone who can sort of bully others around (they expected the Bushes to do this, instead of doing it themselves). If it comes down to Trump vs one other GOP candidate - Trump loses. Especially that if you coalesce around a candidate, Christie doesn't take out Rubio, and if you do it fast enough, Trump maybe doesn't take out Bush - but we're going down the counter-factual rabbit hole at that point.

3) The GOP decides to try to take out Trump initially instead of focusing on Cruz. (Once again, falls on GOP leadership, primarily the RNC). People forgot that the GOP leadership went after Cruz for months before realizing that Trump was a legitimate threat.

Any / all of those things would have probably ended Trump's candidacy.
Click to expand...

I just don't see how the GOP doesn't make those mistakes all over again in 2020. Even after this failure I don't think there will be enough pain to force them to change anything. They still dominate state politics and I am not sure they would do anything to endanger that.

I think that Trump is the tip of the iceberg. 2020 will be worse.
My prediction is Curt Schilling.
 
J

jmdajr

Member
whyamihere said:
Reince on this call:



Ride or die!
Click to expand...

4602a119_o.png
 
M

Manmademan

Member
BlastProcessing said:
I just don't see how the GOP doesn't make those mistakes all over again in 2020. Even after this failure I don't think there will be enough pain to force them to change anything. They still dominate state politics and I am not sure they would do anything to endanger that.

I think that Trump is the tip of the iceberg. 2020 will be worse.
My prediction is Curt Schilling.
Click to expand...

I disagree here. they are ABSOLUTELY changing rules up to prevent Trump II: electric boogaloo from happening.

They changed them up after Ron Paul caused more problems for them than he was worth. You think after this disaster they don't alter rules to stop Trump from happening again?

moving to increase superdelegates, reduce WTA states, or both would get them there and the process to do so is trivial.

edit: the assumption that "more debates with more candidates" would also get them more media exposure was also a likely result of Trump getting as far as he did. Those werent debates at all, that was 14 people trying desperately to get a soundbite in that would stick for the next media cycle.

in a more traditional format, Trump flames out- we've seen how awful he is in a 1 on 1 situation with clinton.
 
S

SexyFish

Banned
Trump to fly on press plane with reporters via MSNBC

Edit: Trump trolling.

Jennifer Jacobs Verified account
‏@JenniferJJacobs
"I'm traveling with you," Trump tells us.
This will be a FIRST.
Click to expand...
https://twitter.com/JenniferJJacobs/status/785591518212022272

Jennifer JacobsVerified account
‏@JenniferJJacobs
NO TRUMP.
Staff pushed reporters to back of press plane to accommodate candidate and his advisers and security, but now told us NEVER MIND
Click to expand...
 
The Lamonster

The Lamonster

Member
So Republican leadership decided they have no choice but to endure Trump. Meanwhile, Democrats will be hammering the airwaves for the next four weeks with "this Republican candidate still supports Mr. Sexual Assault"

this is glorious
 
T

Teggy

Member
You ever see that show Bull, where they have a mirror jury that they can use to predict the outcome of a trial? That's what internals are like. The campaigns have a mirror of every eligible voter in the country, and they periodically call all 150 million of them and simulate the election. The results are really accurate.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Show us your gaming setup: 2024 Edition
2 3 4 5
230
40K
elbourreau replied
  • Locked
Show us your gaming setup: 2023 Edition | 20th anniversary thread
2 3 4 5 6
268
58K
DGrayson replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT6| Made this thread during Harvey because the ratings would be higher
338 339 340 341 342
17K
2M
UselessNapkin replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT5| The Man In the High Chair
395 396 397 398 399
20K
2M
RDreamer replied
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT4| The leaks are coming from inside the white house
396 397 398 399 400
20K
2M
ShironRedshift replied
Top Bottom