• 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.
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.

Read the reports on early voting in NV, FL, NC, and hell, even TX.

You'll feel great (if you want Hillary to win, that is).
 

Angry Grimace

Two cannibals are eating a clown. One turns to the other and says "does something taste funny to you?"
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.

The actual answer is Mike Pence is president and Trump is a noisy figurehead.
 
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.

You had CBS/NYT, today the Fox News poll comes out, ABC/Wapo have their tracker.

So CNN/ORC and NBC/WSJ are left.
 

BSsBrolly

Banned
What's nerve-racking is that we are still seeing polls without a candidate at or above 50%...

By still seeing, I mean we haven't seen any with a candidate at or above 50%.
 
So the oppo dream is dead?

giphy.gif
 

Green Yoshi

Member
I truly believe Sanders would have been labeled SOCIALIST in so many ads it would have destroyed him. Just ads with him saying "I'm a democratic socialist" would have gotten him fucked with independents.

I say that but Trump's campaign/business possibly having ties to Russia does nothing to some people so who knows, really.

One of Trump's main arguments was "Your donors use tax evasions, too". But against Sanders this statement would be pointless.

Also I don't think that you could scare many people with the label "socialist" anymore.

A landslide for Sanders would have been very likely.
 
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!

I've written about the Hispanic increase to death by now, and how the huge numbers of new voters since 2012 has fucked Florida polling so badly it isn't reliable many many times.

But that aside...it's very interesting that the assumption is that Hispanics will ticket split for Rubio when that's never actually been shown to be true.

Rubio won in 2010....a wave election year for republicans in the most favorable conditions possible with 49% of the vote. The remaining vote was split between crist running as an independent and a no name democrat.

In a year with normal turnout, or one strong candidate on the D side he would have been dismantled.

Since then Rubio has become absolutely loathed in the state. PPP had his approval in the 30% range in June with 50% disapproving....that's the only polling I can find on that. It's just assumed he's better liked than he actually is.

The "ticket splitting" argument revolves entirely around the assumption that Hispanic voters regardless of origin will vote for Rubio en masse while preferring Clinton by 60/30 margins, ignoring his horrible job performance because he has a Hispanic last name.

This is not only bizarre, it's kind of racist. Republicans run token candidates all the time based on this theory and it never works.
 

Piecake

Member
The Democratic party controlled Alabama's state government until Obama was elected. 2008 feels like a cleaner cut point.

Then the Alabama democratic party was relying heavily on racist votes to win elections at that point. The democratic national party and other democratic state parties certainly were not.

As a result, that date should either be moved up to at least 2000 or your description of the time period should be changed.
 
I'll refresh this thread on my phone after twenty minutes, and there will be like four more pages of posts, and I'll think some oppo has been droppo'd, but nope. It's actually four pages of bedwetting, people bitching about 538 till no end and people asking when the oppo will be droppo'd.

I never learn.

FTFY
 
There's not much point now to looking at polling. People are already voting, so any election analysis is just clearly incorrect if it fails to mention the data we're seeing.

And yes, this includes any Hillary +15 nonsense as well. And on that note, one of the worst defenses of his model was when Silver threw out the "Hey, my model also predicts the highest chance of a Clinton landslide!" as if the criticism was coming from people just mad that her chances were low. If that were the case, don't you think more people would be attacking RCP?

If the best cover you've got is "all of my critics are biased" then I'm going to have to say your point sounds like shit.


LOL
 

Green Yoshi

Member
Read the reports on early voting in NV, FL, NC, and hell, even TX.

You'll feel great (if you want Hillary to win, that is).

I would not overestimate early voting:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-read-too-much-into-early-voting/

In a German podcast they speculated that people, that didn't vote for decades, will vote for Trump because they hate the system and think it's responsible for their misery.

German media hates Trump btw. In polls 87% of Germans want Clinton to be the next president and only 5% support Trump.
 
I would not overestimate early voting:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-read-too-much-into-early-voting/

In a German podcast they speculated that people, that didn't vote for decades, will vote for Trump because they hate the system and think it's responsible for their misery.

German media hates Trump btw. In polls 87% of Germans want Clinton to be the next president and only 5% support Trump.

Germans are too pessimistic. There are no hidden Trump voters.
 

Blader

Member
One of Trump's main arguments was "Your donors use tax evasions, too". But against Sanders this statement would be pointless.

Also I don't think that you could scare many people with the label "socialist" anymore.

A landslide for Sanders would have been very likely.

Here's my counterargument:

6bdstjdogu2cb2zu35rrmw.png


http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

Now, maybe over the following year and change, Bernie could've completely turned that around! But in a campaign cycle where a significant portion of the electorate is deathly afraid of the idea of Muslims, the fact that Americans would be inclined to vote for a Muslim president than a socialist one seems like Bernie would have faced a giant uphill battle.

And as previously pointed out, Bernie being the nominee would've meant his campaign would be run by Jeff Weaver, who is totally incompetent. He would've never put together the same coalition-building, data-driven GOTV effort that Mook is overseeing -- and clearly didn't, as evidenced by Hillary winning in a landslide over Bernie.
 

Hazmat

Member
+1 for Clinton and Big Daddy Kaine in Texas. We never had a chance at taking the state, but I'm interested to see the results for the first time ever.
 

Iolo

Member
I would not overestimate early voting:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-read-too-much-into-early-voting/

In a German podcast they speculated that people, that didn't vote for decades, will vote for Trump because they hate the system and think it's responsible for their misery.

German media hates Trump btw. In polls 87% of Germans want Clinton to be the next president and only 5% support Trump.

Well, my understanding is that people who didn't vote for decades would probably have been removed from the voter rolls and would have had to reregister, but we haven't really seen a surge in registrations. It would be possible that people who didn't vote recently will suddenly vote though.
 
In a German podcast they speculated that people, that didn't vote for decades, will vote for Trump because they hate the system and think it's responsible for their misery.

This hasn't been seen in:

Early voting results
nationwide polling
voter registration changes/data

The only big shifts that happened where in some states where Republicans who were still registered as Democrats reassigned parties so they could vote in the contested primary.

People that disillusioned for that long with the system just aren't going to vote.
 

Zukkoyaki

Member
I would not overestimate early voting:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-read-too-much-into-early-voting/

In a German podcast they speculated that people, that didn't vote for decades, will vote for Trump because they hate the system and think it's responsible for their misery.

German media hates Trump btw. In polls 87% of Germans want Clinton to be the next president and only 5% support Trump.

The hidden Trump voter has essentially been debunked:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/04/u...count-on-those-missing-white-voters.html?_r=0

(This focuses on white voters, but the arguments are basically the same)
 
I would not overestimate early voting:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/dont-read-too-much-into-early-voting/

In a German podcast they speculated that people, that didn't vote for decades, will vote for Trump because they hate the system and think it's responsible for their misery.

German media hates Trump btw. In polls 87% of Germans want Clinton to be the next president and only 5% support Trump.

If you don't vote for decades, you need to re-register, and considering there's no evidence of a massive block of new white voters registering, these shadow voters (that don't actually exist) will be pretty surprised when they're not able to vote

When 60-70% of a state has already voted, and one candidate is leading those voters by a large margin, it seems pretty bad to just say "well, don't overestimate the votes of 70% of the population of a state" because that sounds stupid. That 40-30% of the voting population is not going to be able to overcome the 60-70%.
 

Iolo

Member
If you don't vote for decades, you need to re-register, and considering there's no evidence of a massive block of new white voters registering, these shadow voters (that don't actually exist) will be pretty surprised when they're not able to vote

Another problem that a robust GOTV effort is meant to address
 
In a German podcast they speculated that people, that didn't vote for decades, will vote for Trump because they hate the system and think it's responsible for their misery.

This has never accurately described Republicans. They vote habitually, and we have data that Trump isn't turning out new voters. He's getting people that most certainly voted against Obama, but he's also losing people that voted for McCain/Romney

Here's my counterargument:

6bdstjdogu2cb2zu35rrmw.png


http://www.gallup.com/poll/183713/socialist-presidential-candidates-least-appealing.aspx

Now, maybe over the following year and change, Bernie could've completely turned that around! But in a campaign cycle where a significant portion of the electorate is deathly afraid of the idea of Muslims, the fact that Americans would be inclined to vote for a Muslim president than a socialist one seems like Bernie would have faced a giant uphill battle.

And as previously pointed out, Bernie being the nominee would've meant his campaign would be run by Jeff Weaver, who is totally incompetent. He would've never put together the same coalition-building, data-driven GOTV effort that Mook is overseeing -- and clearly didn't, as evidenced by Hillary winning in a landslide over Bernie.

You also have to factor in the oppo. Yes, it's out there, and no, it almost never came up because it wasn't necessary. But I really don't like the idea of a headline after the Access Hollywood tape comes out, and people throw up Bernie's college letter about women fantasizing about rape in the same story. That would not play well for us. I also don't think Bernie would be this close to flipping AZ and rocking Florida; Hispanic voters are Clinton backers for sure. They kept her very close to Obama in '08, and she's the candidate to really fold them into the Obama coalition.

Honestly, I think in 15 years we'll be calling it the Obama/Clinton coalition instead. Barack started the work, and Hillary's going to fold in white women, college-educated men, and larger numbers of Hispanic voters into the group. That's a big fucking tent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom