Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by onejayhawk, Mar 23, 2016.
So do they. What's your point? It isn't like they blame him because he's a D.
The error bars are probably pretty substantial right now, but Nate silver thinks this is what an election held today would look like:
That sure looks like a blowout. Georgia too?
I think there are too many wild cards. Trump is one too many wild card.
Sent from my LG-D800 using Tapatalk
The problem with Trump is that he is doubling down on the Romney coalition, but Trump has even more disapproval among white males, and catastrophic disapproval among women, African-Americans, and Hispanics, so his path to victory is really, really tiny. Like, he has to win the white male vote massively, overwhelmingly more than Romney did.
However, this election is very weird so far. But polls have been mostly accurate, hitting the majority of states, with a few exceptions (Michigan, for one).
Okay. I looked at the 2012 map. He is predicting Georgia (!) New Mexico, North Carolina (!) and Nevada flip.
Probably too early, but I might concede that the Republicans had way too many candidates for way too long.
Does he say anything about the Senate?
Looks about right. What a massacre.
Nothing about senate. I should add, his map is based on current polling numbers suggesting a 10-11% lead for Hillary over Trump.
Actually New Mexico and Nevada were blue in 2012. It's NC Georgia and Arizona. NC, which Obama won in 2008. The main surprise is Georgia.
Here is the electoral map I grabbed.
EDIT: Looks like I am mistaken about NM and NV. Sorry. Now... Where did those other 11 votes go that I was looking for?
[I also fail at "find the difference" games! ]
No, I think it has more to do with the fact that Clinton dealt with the threat of Al Queda for years and had a couple of opportunities to capture or kill Bin Laden whereas Bush was only President for 8 months before 9-11 happened.
Present! Speak of the devil . I'm gonna (unsurprisingly) disagree with you J. Sanders is old. Really, really, really, old. He would jump at the "lifetime achievement award" of VP.
@ Commodore- I will probably cry myself to sleep every night if you spite me by voting for Trump. I mean if I knew you were voting for Trump just to spite me... I don't think I could bear it. Also, if you just kinda want to vote for Trump as a guilty pleasure and you just want to blame it on me. I give you full permission to do that too. I just want you to be happy. Finally, this is America man, do what you want, you don't owe me or anyone else an explanation. And all kidding aside you know I seriously mean that last bit. Also:
And This well stated J
Nah, it wouldn't be a guilty pleasure. Just threatening to vote for Trump makes me feel slimey and like I should immediately take a shower.
Actually, there is no data-driven reason to think that Trump won't win either as at this point, any data about matchups are just garbage.
And as they say: garbage in, garbage out.
Reagan was dumb enough to place troops in Beirut in '83 but he wasn't dumb enough to double down when almost 300 of them were killed in the barracks bombing. He pulled out and stayed out and let the Russians continue bleeding in Afghanistan. That changed with the Bush-Clinton crowd, we kept the army in Saudi Arabia even as we started getting attacked.
I didn't forget, I blamed our war on the Bush-Clinton crowd - George I, Bill Clinton and then Shrub. Obama got stuck with their mess and he's got a "D" after his name.
Now of course AQ and its allies could focus on our army in SA because the Russians left Afghanistan and we weren't leaving. George I could have avoided 9/11 by leaving but instead we stayed to enforce sanctions on Iraq. Bill Clinton could have avoided 9/11 too but entered office and let everyone know we were staying and within a couple months AQ attacked the WTC.
The next attack on the WTC came after GWBush didn't change the policy. Al Qaeda gave both presidents some time to make a change, neither did and Americans got killed because of their neo-con stupidity/strategy.
I'd agree that head to head polling data is probably not very useful right now, but that doesn't mean we don't have any useful data. What, half of the GOP primaries are over? We have data on the kinds of voters Trump does well with, and the kinds of voters he struggles with. We have data on Trump's favorability with many different types of people, and given that his name recognition is virtually 100% at this point (in stark comparison to most nominees), there's reason to believe his favorability will be more static than other nominees throughout the cycle. We also have months and months of polling and election data that would suggest there is a bit of a ceiling to Trump's support.
I don't see what you could possibly point to about the last several months to suggest that this would be a competitive national election, save a scandal so great with Clinton (which hey, I guess is possible) that would jeopardize her ability to remain on the ticket.
Trump and Clinton have the highest unfavorables, hers will go up when Trump starts attacking her.
Not having troops on the ground isn't a big improvement. Reagan never stopped making people mad with his Middle East meddling, so why let him off the hook?
This. I was really hoping she would run in 2024, until I found out how old she was... Still there's hope, its just less hope. In a way I feel like this cycle is to Warren what 2004 was to Hillary and 2012 was to Christie. The year when country and party needed them, they missed the boat.
You guys made me literally laugh out loud uncontrollably. I started picturing the chimps/baboons from the Monster jobs.com commercials all dressed up as the candidates, ooh-ooh-ooh and aah-aah'ing at each other in the debates and waving their arms around. It was bad, I was cracking up. I had to shut the door.
Well the sheer, "Flick-you establishment, you're dead to us!" statement of it has appeal, I must admit... At least in that regard I can sort of admire the Trump voters. I love seeing so many of my countrymen stubbornly refusing to be told who to vote for by the party bosses and media bosses. It shows at least that it is possible, and that in and of itself is encouraging.
The major attacks we suffered followed placing troops on the ground... Reagan left, Bush-Clinton-Bush did not.
Do you have a link for that prediction? I'm interested to see how he justifies Georgia and Arizona, especially Georgia.
The thing about Georgia is that, in common with the rest of the Deep South, it has relatively few swing voters. Thus while the margins may look small enough to be winnable in a blowout, in practice it's a lot harder. Even during the 2008 election, it was still more than 5% away. It also voted heavily for Trump in the Republican primary, which makes me think it should be a fairly good state for him. Why does it go to Clinton while Missouri and Indiana do not?
Arizona was also a strong Trump state in the primary. Does Trump cause an unusually high Hispanic turnout to vote against him or something?
Separate names with a comma.