• 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 |OT14| Attention NV shoppers, democracy is on sale in aisle 4!

Status
Not open for further replies.

A Human Becoming

More than a Member
Everyone relates socialist to communist because of cold war so it is worse than being labeled a criminal. That being said Russia is being run by an ex-KGB agent who the Republican nominee is in love with..... so maybe it could of been a wash in public perception, but I doubt it.
Socialist does not carry a stigma in the Dem primaries. It absolutely does for general election voters 40 and older.
Both candidates have their strengths and weaknesses, so I don't think anyone can definitively say Sanders would have done worse or better.

Unfortunately for Hillary, most of her weaknesses are perception, not reality.
 
People continue to miss the biggest issue with a hypothetical Sanders run against Trump. Jeff fucking Weaver would have been running his campaign. Let that sink in a bit. This is the same fucking guy who thought that the strategy of completely ignoring the southern states during the primaries was an acceptable strategy to win. He's fucking clueless.

Edit: Also according to many Clinton is the worst Democratic nominee in history. What does that tell you about Sanders since he couldn't beat the worst nominee ever

Rigged!
 
CwbTOstXcAAKu7E.jpg

AAAHHHH THUGS!!!
 

Atlagev

Member
LOL

Clinton campaign says to stop refreshing 538. Her camp definately reads PoliGaf

I'm too nervous to do phone banking stuff, so I just gave her $45.

My wife, however, who has experience with this kind of stuff (she volunteered hard for both Dean and Kerry, and was actually in the room when Dean did his "Dean Scream"), is volunteering this weekend.
 
So is 538 even reliable? It makes it seem like this race is too close to call, but a few days ago NYT were saying she had the 272 EV before the battleground states! I'm freaking out over here, but I have a feeling that there are a lot of Republicans who are closet Hillary supporters because the other guy is insane.
 
So is 538 even reliable? It makes it seem like this race is too close to call, but a few days ago NYT were saying she had the 272 EV before the battleground states! I'm freaking out over here, but I have a feeling that there are a lot of Republicans who are closet Hillary supporters because the other guy is insane.

Hillary is basically assured of winning Nevada at this point due to early voting and if Hillary was just given Nevada in the model, her odds on 538 would shoot up massively (bigly).
 

iavi

Member
How do we have reports of record Dem turnout in early voting for NC/FL and they still show as red on 538?

For all the probability it does account for, it doesn't account for early voting?
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
How do we have reports of record Dem turnout in early voting for NC/FL and they still show as red on 538?

Because that's completely irrelevant to 538's model. It's like saying Nate should update his model on November 9th to reflect who actually won.
 
So is 538 even reliable? It makes it seem like this race is too close to call, but a few days ago NYT were saying she had the 272 EV before the battleground states! I'm freaking out over here, but I have a feeling that there are a lot of Republicans who are closet Hillary supporters because the other guy is insane.

Useless, especially right now.

Trump has to win all of the swing states and flip a blue state like MI, WI or PA. The chances of that are a lot lower than whatever chances 538 gives Trump right now.
 
How do we have reports of record Dem turnout in early voting for NC/FL and they still show as red on 538?

For all the probability it does account for, it doesn't account for early voting?

The model doesn't account for early voting, none of these models do and that's not something fair to single out Silver for, at least when it comes to the modeling. The fact that his writing and punditry doesn't take these things into account is a real issue. Most of 538's issues are because of its writing to be honest.
 

Zukkoyaki

Member
Because that's completely irrelevant to 538's model. It's like saying Nate should update his model on November 9th to reflect who actually won.

I can see him doing that :p

Kind of like those guys who go back and change their draft projections based on who went where and ended up being good (Chad Ford!!)
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Posted while a C+ poll in Utah dropped her percentage 1.3 points and flipped NC and FL to red.

gpSxVUn.png


538's model wets the bed worse than any of us.
Also I'm sorry this is embarrassing. Even if you take it to mean trump is consolidating republicans or white people or mormons or trolls or fuckheads, how does a c+ poll in Utah move the numbers like this
 
Also I'm sorry this is embarrassing. Even if you take it to mean trump is consolidating republicans or white people or mormons or trolls or fuckheads, how does a c+ poll in Utah move the numbers like this

Movement in Utah means Republicans are coming home in NC!
 

Iolo

Member
Trump will have Upwards of 7 volunteers on the ground this weekend.

He will have at least 23.

House Majority Whip Steve Scalise is used to cajoling stubborn lawmakers into backing important legislation. Now he’s rounding-up a new category of people: voters.

The Louisiana Republican had deployed his political team to seven key House races to help vulnerable Republicans get voters to the polls. The 23-person get-out-the-vote operation — which also includes nine staffers and volunteers from chief deputy whip Patrick McHenry’s (R-N.C.) political operation — includes races in Maine, Pennsylvania, Nebraska and Wisconsin.
 
So is 538 even reliable? It makes it seem like this race is too close to call, but a few days ago NYT were saying she had the 272 EV before the battleground states! I'm freaking out over here, but I have a feeling that there are a lot of Republicans who are closet Hillary supporters because the other guy is insane.

If you're freaking out reach out to the local dems and do some phone banking. Regarding 538, there are reasons to think that its 'trend seeking' model combined with a move to Trump caused by that letter from Comey is making things closer than they appear.
 
Why don't Democrats brag about having the oldest political party in the world? The Republicans constantly want to remind people about how they started with Lincoln and how old and long lasting they are.

But the Democrats are older. And yea, we're not going to brag about Jackson being our first official president, but the party has roots in Jefferson, and that's certainly worth bringing up.

Democrats don't really talk much at all about their legacy. I guess maybe because it's not really that great of a legacy? It kind of hurts when the first 100 years of the party they were the party of the racists. But Republicans constantly bring up Lincoln and Reagan and how wonderful and successful the GOP has been since it started.

Is it because the GOP has to prop their modern party up with their successful past?
 

Zukkoyaki

Member
Also I'm sorry this is embarrassing. Even if you take it to mean trump is consolidating republicans or white people or mormons or trolls or fuckheads, how does a c+ poll in Utah move the numbers like this

Other high-profile analysts are sick of this as well, like Dave Rothschild (PredictWise):

@DavMicRot David Rothschild Retweeted Jay Arnold
I cannot stress this enough, movement in state-level polling in red-states is completely meaningless and should not move a model at all

I'm getting the feeling that Harry Enten has grown skeptical of their model as well. He's been discussing how unlikely it is for Trump to close 3-4+ point gaps this late, pointing out bad polls and actually acknowledging early vote on Twitter a LOT the past few days.
 
Why don't Democrats brag about having the oldest political party in the world? The Republicans constantly want to remind people about how they started with Lincoln and how old and long lasting they are.

But the Democrats are older. And yea, we're not going to brag about Jackson being our first official president, but the party has roots in Jefferson, and that's certainly worth bringing up.

Democrats don't really talk much at all about their legacy. I guess maybe because it's not really that great of a legacy? It kind of hurts when the first 100 years of the party they were the party of the racists. But Republicans constantly bring up Lincoln and Reagan and how wonderful and successful the GOP has been since it started.

Is it because the GOP has to prop their modern party up with their successful past?
Dems love to lionize FDR though right, maybe we should tap into LBJ some too though.
 
Why don't Democrats brag about having the oldest political party in the world? The Republicans constantly want to remind people about how they started with Lincoln and how old and long lasting they are.

But the Democrats are older. And yea, we're not going to brag about Jackson being our first official president, but the party has roots in Jefferson, and that's certainly worth bringing up.

Democrats don't really talk much at all about their legacy. I guess maybe because it's not really that great of a legacy? It kind of hurts when the first 100 years of the party they were the party of the racists. But Republicans constantly bring up Lincoln and Reagan and how wonderful and successful the GOP has been since it started.

Is it because the GOP has to prop their modern party up with their successful past?

I'm not sure why they should, most of that history is dark, and political parties aren't sports teams where anyone cares about ancient history.
 
Why don't Democrats brag about having the oldest political party in the world? The Republicans constantly want to remind people about how they started with Lincoln and how old and long lasting they are.

But the Democrats are older. And yea, we're not going to brag about Jackson being our first official president, but the party has roots in Jefferson, and that's certainly worth bringing up.

Democrats don't really talk much at all about their legacy. I guess maybe because it's not really that great of a legacy? It kind of hurts when the first 100 years of the party they were the party of the racists. But Republicans constantly bring up Lincoln and Reagan and how wonderful and successful the GOP has been since it started.

Is it because the GOP has to prop their modern party up with their successful past?

I absolutely do not want the Dems to talk about the fact that they were a political party in 1829 to 1931.

That time period was very very bad...

I mean, Jefferson hated building roads and hated national banks and was a super neocon so it's hard to say he's similar to the modern Democratic party in any way.
 

Cyanity

Banned
Rush Limbaugh is trying to tell his supporters that the Clintons and the Podestas are cannibal satanist devil worshippers and I'm trying not to drive off the road I'm laughing so hard
 

Revolver

Member
Just found out that a friend of mine, who I kind-of-respected too, might be a Trump supporter.

Was out yesterday and saw a cousin of mine wearing a red MAGA cap. I just avoided him. I haven't spoken to him in a couple of years and we weren't real close but it was still depressing. His little girl has muscular dystrophy and I don't see how he can look her in the eye.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom