• 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.
K

Kangi

Member
Zukkoyaki said:
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.
Click to expand...

Harry's great. I'd love to see NYT snatch him up. He and Nate Cohn are like peanut butter and jelly.
 
A

Atlagev

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
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?
Click to expand...

They're like the Cowboys, or the Yankees when they were shitty in the '80s.
 
GutsOfThor

GutsOfThor

Member
Cyanity said:
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
Click to expand...

Cannibalistic and satanic?! Clinton is the most metal candidate ever!
 
C

Coriolanus

Banned
balladofwindfishes said:
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.
Click to expand...

because their base doesnt care about that, probably. Nor should they, really. "hey, we old as balls". k.

democrats just don't seem to be as big on appeals to tradition as republicans.
 
C

Carpe Carnim

Member
Slayven said:
I like to think the fact they dragged Ted Cruz out on the trail means they know they are done
Click to expand...

Making sure that everyone gets the stink on them so if they go down, everyone comes with them without a fig-leaf of plausible deniability? They even trapped McConnell into giving his strongest endorsement of Trump, this week.
 
F

Fragamemnon

Member
it's sad how much talk about early voting by race has happened, and how the other big story-women crushing it in early vote-isn't getting nearly the kind of noise.
 
B

balladofwindfishes

Member
Fragamemnon said:
it's sad how much talk about early voting by race has happened, and how the other big story-women crushing it in early vote-isn't getting nearly the kind of noise.
Click to expand...

I think because it's harder to tell who those women are voting for.

If Hispanic or Black turnout is up, we know exactly what that means. With white women, it's not as concrete.
 
A

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Not to pile on 538, but the reality is that there isn't any reason to specifically buy into Nate Silver's model over any other model. His track record isn't actually better than, say Sam Wang's and the sample size for how well 538's model performs in general elections (or even if the model internally changed from 2008 to present) isn't particularly large.

I certainly wouldn't ignore what he has to say just because its not hopium, though.
 
H

Hooligan69

Member
adam387 said:
CwbTOstXcAAKu7E.jpg
Click to expand...

Panderdome confirmed!
 
C

Carpe Carnim

Member
Fragamemnon said:
it's sad how much talk about early voting by race has happened, and how the other big story-women crushing it in early vote-isn't getting nearly the kind of noise.
Click to expand...

They don't want to make the GOP dudes too paranoid about their wives. It might depress turnout if they're worried their alabaster princesses are electorally cucking them
 
I

ItWasMeantToBe19

Banned
There's like five eras of the Dem party.

1. 1820s to 1890s: Party based entirely on hatred of black people.

2. 1890s to 1930s: Hate all non-white people, but they started caring about poor white people more.

3. 1930s to 1960s: More focused on helping the poor, but still really hate non-white people.

4. 1960s to 2008: The less racist party for the first time, but still rely heavily on racists for votes.

5. 2008 to now: Can win elections without Dixiecrats now and all the Dixiecrats are either dead or finally Republicans.
 
P

Piecake

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
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?
Click to expand...

The only reason why Republicans bring up Lincoln so much is because they see that as proof that they aren't racists and don't support racist policies, but in fact, are the party that minorities should support because of reasons.

Democrats don't have any reason to do that and understand that voters don't care about a party's history. They care about what the party stands for right now.
 
B

BadRNG

Member
Manmademan said:
They're all going to ticket split for Rubio so Murphy is toast, right
Click to expand...
Hasn't the DNC itself largely given up on him? Did I miss a development there?

We all want Rubio to lose, just skeptical given all the polling we've seen. I've seen you write extensively on why the polling can be wrong due to how polls lump all Hispanics in together, and I really hope you're right. Guess we'll see, just a few more days to go!

balladofwindfishes said:
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?
Click to expand...
There's definitely a lot to not be super proud of in the Dem history, exactly because it's so old. The main thing though I think is just messaging. The democrats are constantly pushing towards future ideals, the republicans are constantly talking about the old ways. For a large group of people the D's want to appeal to, especially minorities, the old ways are not something they want to return to. Why talk about it?

Keep moving forward, and leave any ancestor worship behind. I am pulling it out my ass but I'd be willing to bet a large amount of Democrats, especially the younger ones, do not care who used to be in the party or the history of the platform. It's about what is now and what is to come.
 
lyrick

lyrick

Member
Randolph Freelander said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well that certainly fails the gut check, Is it a trendline weighting issue?

I also just saw that Robby Mook told me to stop refreshing Nates Model...
I Need a model that makes me feel good. Time to build my own model.
 
B

BiggNife

Member
Angry Grimace said:
Not to pile on 538, but the reality is that there isn't any reason to specifically buy into Nate Silver's model over any other model. His track record isn't actually better than, say Sam Wang's and the sample size for how well 538's model performs in general elections (or even if the model internally changed from 2008 to present) isn't particularly large.

I certainly wouldn't ignore what he has to say just because its not hopium, though.
Click to expand...

I think Systemic Polling Error (TM) is a real thing to be concerned about and should be taken seriously but also 538 leans on polling error so heavily that it feels like it's being too cautious.

I am against the whole "Trash nate" trend I've seen here lately but also I wish we had a real explanation as to why a fucking C+ Utah poll that doesn't tell us anything we didn't already know somehow drops Hillary's odds by 1.5 percent.
 
A

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
Piecake said:
The only reason why Republicans bring up Lincoln so much is because they see that as proof that they aren't racists and don't support racist policies, but in fact, are the party that minorities should support because of reasons.

Democrats don't have any reason to do that and understand that voters don't care about a party's history. They care about what the party stands for right now.
Click to expand...

There's also the fact that most of their history involves a lot of unsavory shit that has no modern relevance to anyone. The same is true for the GOP but they don't really fall back on that at all beyond the catch phrase "party of Lincoln."
 
K

Kusagari

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
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?
Click to expand...

The GOP brag about Lincoln because he's one of the most revered figures in American history.

The Democrats have as their perceived founder the guy who orchestrated the Trail of Tears.
 
P

Piecake

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
There's like five eras of the Dem party.

1. 1820s to 1890s: Party based entirely on hatred of black people.

2. 1890s to 1930s: Hate all non-white people, but they started caring about poor white people more.

3. 1930s to 1960s: More focused on helping the poor, but still really hate non-white people.

4. 1960s to 2008: The less racist party for the first time, but still rely heavily on racists for votes.

5. 2008 to now: Can win elections without Dixiecrats now and all the Dixiecrats are either dead or finally Republicans.
Click to expand...

At the very latest, stage 4 is to 2000.
 
I

IggyChooChoo

Member
balladofwindfishes said:
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?
Click to expand...
It confuses people. But since you mentioned it, Trump is the most Jacksonian candidate we've had in a long, long time. Although Trump could never manhandle a would-be assassin or fight the British or take a bullet in the chest without flinching and then kill a man in a duel the way Old Hickory could. But it is interesting (when it isn't terrifying) to see the two parties fight it out over which of them is a more legitimate representative of the common man (and who the common man is). Jackson was an awful president, but this election makes me think his importance is really underrated.
 
C

Carpe Carnim

Member
Is that discord thing still a-go? I downloaded the PC version and may need other people to talk to on Tuesday so my wife doesn't hate me for the constant updates
 
M

metalslimer

Member
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
The Democratic party controlled Alabama's state government until Obama was elected. 2008 feels like a cleaner cut point.
Click to expand...

Yeah living in the south 2008 definitely felt like a point of no return where things got a lot more red. Let's just say I don't think John Kerry winning would have caused that.

Of course VA and NC began the change to get to where they are now so it was worth it.
 
Z

Zukkoyaki

Member
There's been some discussion of this but is anyone else surprised by the lack of major national polls? We're four days away I would have expected the final dump by this point.
 
T

Tendo

Member
This is nerverwracking. Trying to trust the polls but man, the threat of failure is too great. Terrifying what the bad outcome would look like.
 
I

Iolo

Member
Zukkoyaki said:
There's been some discussion of this but is anyone else surprised by the lack of major national polls? We're four days away I would have expected the final dump by this point.
Click to expand...

Rick Wilson says polls will be dumped no later than today

Dump the oppolls
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • 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
  • Locked
PoliGAF 2017 |OT3| 13 Treasons Why
393 394 395 396 397
20K
2M
Zaraki_Kenpachi replied
  • Locked
Poligaf 2017 |OT| It Almost Isn't Fair
9
4K
Bonen no Max'd replied
Top Bottom