Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

OTP November 2012 - Moneypoll! The Pundits vs. The Election-Data Nerds

Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.

In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...

Bonus link: Esquire - The Enemies of Nate Silver

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2012 at 11:42 PM | 11298 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mr president, off-topic, politics, sabermetrics, usa

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 20 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 >  Last ›
   1901. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 05, 2012 at 11:53 AM (#4293239)
guys

i agree that the ideas were whacky

but they were very real

the inability to accept that i have some real nutjobs with a lot of money in my party who wanted to throw a million pounds of mud at a sitting president that these folks regard as the anti-christ leaves me a bit nonplussed here
   1902. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 05, 2012 at 11:55 AM (#4293240)
senator mccain did not have 1/10th of this pressure. not even close

   1903. spike Posted: November 05, 2012 at 11:55 AM (#4293241)
i know that nobody here is inclined to say 'thanks' to gov romney but he put the kibosh on a number of ugly proposals.

While that may be mechanically true, I have to doubt that it was some moral epiphany that led him there - just the knowledge that it would have failed miserably. But fair enough - I would be willing to concede that Romney was presented with some truly awful campaign options that he chose not to pursue.
   1904. bunyon Posted: November 05, 2012 at 11:55 AM (#4293242)
This isn't the sort of thing that can get settled until it happens.

There are over 1900 posts that fit this description.
   1905. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: November 05, 2012 at 11:56 AM (#4293243)
My best guess is that Gov. Romney putting "the kibosh on a number of ugly proposals" was a good strategic move for his campaign.

Agreed on this as well. Base would eat it up, independents would mostly be turned off, Dems would be energized.
The few people I know who are intimately involved in R-politics very much wanted the campaign to be nastier than it was.

the inability to accept that i have some real nutjobs with a lot of money in my party who wanted to throw a million pounds of mud at a sitting president that these folks regard as the anti-christ leaves me a bit nonplussed here

Do you see the party as having a chance of escaping their clutches in the coming years? And, if not, is it still the place for you?
   1906. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 05, 2012 at 11:56 AM (#4293244)
i think it's a real credit to the dems and the president's organization that they have held up to an effort that was both well-coordinated and well-financed

   1907. Spahn Insane Posted: November 05, 2012 at 11:58 AM (#4293246)
I am not one for counting chickens and such. After 2000, I believe nothing until the concession speech.

Shooty is a man of wisdom. Not bad for a middling early-80s middle infielder.
   1908. tshipman Posted: November 05, 2012 at 11:58 AM (#4293247)
I guess I don't think those efforts by the Romney camp were a big deal because the right wing partisan media did them anyways.

I'm pretty sure that Fox News is more important nationally than the Romney campaign.
   1909. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 05, 2012 at 11:58 AM (#4293248)
You go on vacation for a couple days and ... many posts later. Anyway I read them all (OK I skimmed some of the posts, especially Joe K poll posts, in my defense though I have read them all before).

My Obama optimism has grown a bit, but for consistency I can go with Obama is a 2:1 favorite. My prediction ... will come tonight when I look closely. I expect 2008 minus IN, Omaha, NC, and possibly CO or FL (comfortable Obama win). Senate amazingly +1 Dem. House + 7 Dem. But I will post my official predictions later (if I don't use these).

Some folks here are really irrational on Nate. I like his stuff, especially his writing. He is (as stated) most useful far out for general and for primaries.

The South was not going to win the Civil War in any reasonable scenario (the North ran a really bad war and still won going away), so talking "what if" really depends on what unreasonable thing happened.

Harvey you are just nuts on the HRC talk. The GOP went really hard against Obama and would have gone just as hard on HRC. But hey whatever.

Regarding 2016, I'll start speculating actively when victory for Obama is declared on CBS at 11:38 est (WAG).

   1910. bunyon Posted: November 05, 2012 at 11:59 AM (#4293249)
I am not one for counting chickens and such. After 2000, I believe nothing until the concession speech.

Er, I mean the second concession speech.
   1911. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 05, 2012 at 11:59 AM (#4293250)
the inability to accept that i have some real nutjobs with a lot of money in my party who wanted to throw a million pounds of mud at a sitting president that these folks regard as the anti-christ leaves me a bit nonplussed here
To be clear, I know that that lots and lots of folks on the right wanted to hit the President much harder on cultural issues. The Republican Party could have made the election about cultural issues, and they didn't. They could have made the campaign about Obama's nationality or patriotism or teenage and twentysomething affiliations, and they did not.

I just think the Romney camp made a good tactical decision to do no more than occasionally gesture in that direction while focusing their campaign as tightly as they could on The Economy, Stupid. I don't think they avoided cultural issues because of a "buffer", they avoided cultural issues because those weren't issues they could win on.
   1912. Spahn Insane Posted: November 05, 2012 at 11:59 AM (#4293251)
It would be a good thing for Christie - if we lived in a world in which a NJ Republican could win the GOP nomination.

Well, we don't live in that world now, but let's see where we are in 2016. Or 2020.
   1913. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:02 PM (#4293253)
The number of rats fleeing the sinking ship while squeaking that Sandy caused Romney to lose (non-existent) momentum now includes Christine Whitman. My other favorite is, 'the only poll that counts is the one taken on election day!'

Good for Ohio State Senator Nina Turner, hammering Secy of State Husted for clipping early voting hours. Assuming Obama wins, this election was won during the year in the courts when GOP vote suppression efforts were beaten back. I was furious early in the year at what looked like the administration's limp defense of voting rights, but they ended up doing a bang up job.

The idea that Romney wouldn't have been fine with his campaign getting as ugly as possible, as long as it polled well, seems odd to me. It would be strange for this to be the one place in which Romney would take a principled stand. OTOH, it's not hard to think McCain, as unpleasant as I found him, rejected some of the baser suggestions on principle.
   1914. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:03 PM (#4293255)
bitter

i may be nuts but i am not wrong.
   1915. just plain joe Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:03 PM (#4293256)
It would be a good thing for Christie - if we lived in a world in which a NJ Republican could win the GOP nomination.

Well, we don't live in that world now, but let's see where we are in 2016. Or 2020.


As the two major parties are presently constructed Christie would stand a better chance of winning the Democratic presidential nomination than the Republican. For better or worse I can't see Christie with any chance of ever becoming the Republican presidential nominee until/unless the moderate faction of that party regain control.
   1916. phredbird Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:06 PM (#4293257)
I take an attitude towards most sporting events that I have a stake in that I term "cautious pessimism". I expect the worst, but until it's mathematically over victory is always imaginable. This sounds like the mirror image of that from the other side, whatever you might call it.


mets fan, are you?
   1917. bunyon Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:13 PM (#4293262)
For better or worse I can't see Christie with any chance of ever becoming the Republican presidential nominee until/unless the moderate faction of that party regain control.

At some point that fight has to happen, doesn't it?
   1918. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:14 PM (#4293263)
bunyon

fight happened. they lost.

you didn't notice?
   1919. bunyon Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:20 PM (#4293266)
No, HW, I didn't notice. I noticed lots of individual races. Are the Rs really going to just keep running amateurish pols out for elections they should otherwise win? I mean, if you guys want to do that, okay. Have the Rs really become a grassroots party?
   1920. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:21 PM (#4293267)
@1917: it'll happen again, though not any time soon. This election is more than close enough that the party is not going to do a whole lot of navel-gazing to figure out where it went wrong. In fact, if anything, Romney doing better than McCain is evidence in favor of the idea that pushing the party to the right is the winning move.

The US is browning, sure, but not nearly fast enough to push the GOP left in 2016 or 2020. Of all the things that the party will look at in the next several years, whether it needs to become more moderate simply won't be one of them.
   1921. SoSH U at work Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:23 PM (#4293269)
bunyon

fight happened. they lost.

you didn't notice?


It's got to be refought at some point. The Indiana and Missouri senate races will surely be instructive to someone in the party. Speaking just for my state, the GOP turned a Senate seat that the Democrats have pretty much conceded for the past 30 years into what looks like it's going to be a sizable Democrat victory (and I couldn't be happier).

   1922. bunyon Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:24 PM (#4293272)
I'm not really talking about moving hard to the left or at the top of the ticket. I think Romney isn't a bad nominee and fits right in with the old R party. I'm talking about the morons who keep winning primaries and then running awful general campaigns. It's cost the Rs the Senate twice in a row (maybe, anyway) and I'd think the adults in the room - no matter how far to the right - would want to fix that.
   1923. Lassus Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:28 PM (#4293274)
fight happened. they lost.

Their loss is our gain. Keep it up.
   1924. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:31 PM (#4293276)
Harvey, the one unanswered question is this: Do you think that it would be smart for the GOP to pursue the sort of campaign that you're saying the party is just itching to do? Do you really see any future for a party with a base of embittered old white men, supply side economists, and religious fundamentalists, all dependent on the state of the economy to rescue them? You surely have to realize that the economic woes as they exist today are the only things that are keeping this election still within Romney's reach.
   1925. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:32 PM (#4293277)
fight happened. they lost.

Their loss is our gain. Keep it up.
I actually disagree. I think a Republican Party with a small but real moderate voice would have enabled the passing of a significantly better set of new programs and structural reforms in 2009-2010, and would not have played chicken with the world economy in 2011-2012. The Tea Party has cost the Republican Party some seats, but they have effectively moved American politics to the right by dragging the Republicans over to their side.
   1926. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:35 PM (#4293281)
Jim Leyritz 1996. I haven't felt good about anything since.


My current position on the Tuesday is something akin to my position on the Braves making the playoffs as of August 2011.
   1927. Steve Treder Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:36 PM (#4293282)
I think a Republican Party with a small but real moderate voice would have enabled the passing of a significantly better set of new programs and structural reforms in 2009-2010, and would not have played chicken with the world economy in 2011-2012.

Agreed. It isn't good for the country to have one of its two major parties behaving crazily. It's destructive.
   1928. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:37 PM (#4293283)
the inability to accept that i have some real nutjobs with a lot of money in my party who wanted to throw a million pounds of mud at a sitting president that these folks regard as the anti-christ leaves me a bit nonplussed here

To be clear, I know that that lots and lots of folks on the right wanted to hit the President much harder on cultural issues. The Republican Party could have made the election about cultural issues, and they didn't. They could have made the campaign about Obama's nationality or patriotism or teenage and twentysomething affiliations, and they did not.

I just think the Romney camp made a good tactical decision to do no more than occasionally gesture in that direction while focusing their campaign as tightly as they could on The Economy, Stupid. I don't think they avoided cultural issues because of a "buffer", they avoided cultural issues because those weren't issues they could win on.
I don't agree with HW, but I don't think your statements actually refute his. He's saying that these weren't issues the GOP could win on because of the "buffer."
   1929. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:39 PM (#4293284)
He's saying that these weren't issues the GOP could win on because of the "buffer."
Hmm, I took the "buffer" as referring to an irrational fear rather than a rational one. Your reading is probably the better one. (Sorry Harvey if that's right, though I still don't agree on the general point.)

I'd still say that whatever "racism buffer" exists, its sexism equivalent is a much more powerful force, politically.
   1930. Lassus Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:41 PM (#4293286)
The Tea Party has cost the Republican Party some seats, but they have effectively moved American politics to the right by dragging the Republicans over to their side.

I'm not sure how much we agree or disagree here, but a right/conservative economic policy with a moderate/left social policy would probably have beaten Obama - and maybe badly - this year. The fact that the right keeps pushing their asinine, unpalatable social agenda (which in many ways does bleed over into economic policy, of course, that takes more work to properly parse) onto a large portion of the population that has no use for it is what has caused them harm, IMO.
   1931. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:41 PM (#4293287)
I just think the Romney camp made a good tactical decision to do no more than occasionally gesture in that direction while focusing their campaign as tightly as they could on The Economy, Stupid. I don't think they avoided cultural issues because of a "buffer", they avoided cultural issues because those weren't issues they could win on.


I think both of you guys are right here. Romney made the correct tactical decision, but to Harvey's point, he also made the moral decision. I don't know that you can separate those decisions, but to Romney's credit he did put the chains on the race-baiting dogs in the GOP as much as anyone could have.

fight happened. they lost.


This is the truest thing to be stated in this thread. This is also why Gold Star still self-identifies as a R (habits die hard) and will be voting for Obama in good faith.
   1932. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:41 PM (#4293288)
Agreed. It isn't good for the country to have one of its two major parties behaving crazily. It's destructive.
True, but what can you do? Until socialism is purged from the Democratic Party, the country is heading for disaster.
   1933. DA Baracus Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:41 PM (#4293290)
The Indiana and Missouri senate races will surely be instructive to someone in the party.


Don't be so sure. Mourdock is down 2 or 3 points in a race that's polled back and forth for months.
   1934. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:44 PM (#4293293)

I'm not sure how much we agree or disagree here, but a right/conservative economic policy with a moderate/left social policy would probably have beaten Obama - and maybe badly - this year.


What is a "right/conservative" economic policy? I'm asking in seriousness, as there doesn't seem to be much of one any more.
   1935. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:45 PM (#4293295)
My current position on the Tuesday is something akin to my position on the Braves making the playoffs as of August 2011.


My current position is close to Armando Galarraga facing Jason Donald in the bottom of the 9th on June 2, 2010, and trying to make history.
   1936. Greg K Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:48 PM (#4293297)
the gop mostly halted the dvd that did get shipped to ohio homes about the president being illegitimate son of a commie. that was proposed as a nationwide effort.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but was that DVD at any time affiliation with the Republican Party? I just assumed that was independent looney-bin stuff. That was actually shipped (albeit abortedly) by the GOP? Or do you mean there were discussions within the party about whether to run with that stuff and they decided against it?
   1937. McCoy Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:49 PM (#4293298)
So what would the country look like now if McCain had won the presidency instead of Bush in 2000?
   1938. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:50 PM (#4293299)
True, but what can you do? Until socialism is purged from the Democratic Party, the country is heading for disaster.


Your willingness to get in bunkers with fascists out of convenience is duly noted, Davey.
   1939. Guapo Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:52 PM (#4293300)
If Obama wins tomorrow, isn't Rubio the obvious R frontrunner for 2016? Charismatic, from Florida, and potentially able to shore up the Republicans demographic problem.
   1940. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4293301)
Good for Ohio State Senator Nina Turner, hammering Secy of State Husted for clipping early voting hours. Assuming Obama wins, this election was won during the year in the courts when GOP vote suppression efforts were beaten back. I was furious early in the year at what looked like the administration's limp defense of voting rights, but they ended up doing a bang up job.
Jesus H. Christ, by 2016, Democrats are going to be proposing that a government employee be dispatched to each person's house to hold his/her hand as he crosses the street to get to the polling place, and when Republicans oppose this, it's going to be called "vote suppression" because hypothetically there's some person somewhere with a phobia about crossing the street who can't vote without this policy in place. Then in 2020 Democrats will propose paying everyone $100 to vote, and it will be called "vote suppression" when Republicans oppose that, because after all more people might vote if they were paid.

Having everyone vote on election day is not "vote suppression." A fortiori, allowing people to vote for a week-long period before election day, or a month-long period before election day, is not "vote suppression," merely because there used to be one or two extra days when people could vote.
   1941. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4293302)
So what would the country look like now if McCain had won the presidency instead of Bush in 2000?


Double digit unemployment. Recession bordering on depression continuing apace. Much more like England than the current US recovery.
   1942. DA Baracus Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:55 PM (#4293305)
If Obama wins tomorrow, isn't Rubio the obvious R frontrunner for 2016? Charismatic, from Florida, and potentially able to shore up the Republicans demographic problem.


Honest question, when's the last time the immediate post-election front runner, if such a thing exists, actually won their party's nomination? Reagan?
   1943. zonk Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:55 PM (#4293306)
The Indiana and Missouri senate races will surely be instructive to someone in the party.




Don't be so sure. Mourdock is down 2 or 3 points in a race that's polled back and forth for months.


Indiana's actually a really tough state to poll because it's got THE most stringent rules for polling and phone contact of any state -- I generally trust Howey-Gauge above all others and they had a monster number out for Donnelly (+11) last week.

Donnelly has run a pretty much pitch perfect Indiana campaign, while Mourdock - even before his debate blunder - had not. Indiana may be relatively deep red, but there's also such a thing as "Indiana nice", and Mourdock simply ain't that. Indiana likes its Dick Lugars, its Mitch Daniels, etc.

I expect Mike Pence to win the governor's mansion by about 10, but I think Donnelly will take the Senate seat with relative ease (say, +5).
   1944. Shredder Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:55 PM (#4293307)
but to Romney's credit he did put the chains on the race-baiting dogs in the GOP as much as anyone could have.
Yeah, he definitely reined in guys like John "Obama is a lazy, foreign, unAmerican idiot who just wants to be cool" Sununu.
   1945. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:58 PM (#4293308)
Honest question, when's the last time the immediate post-election front runner, if such a thing exists, actually won their party's nomination? Reagan?
Romney 2012, McCain 2008, Bush 2000, Dole 1996, Bush 1988, Reagan 1980. The Republican Party runs a tight ship.
   1946. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:59 PM (#4293309)
Honest question, when's the last time the immediate post-election front runner, if such a thing exists, actually won their party's nomination? Reagan?
Presumably you're excluding vice presidents. (e.g., Gore was the immediate front-runner in 2000 after the 1996 election.)

Actually, I don't think it matters if you are, because I think the answer is McCain in 2008. Or possibly Romney in 2012.
   1947. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 05, 2012 at 12:59 PM (#4293310)
andy

i would have long been excommunicated from the party save for my long history.

here are the positions that i have advocated:

--fiscal restraint (big shocker there)
--abortion. very much a local issue but fundamentally it should be available but if states want to insert tight restraints that is fine with me
--defense spending. smarter versus more. all the military honchos of substance i know support this approach and rightly so.
--social securirty. blech. at minimum the age goes way up
--medicare. i really do not hate this with a passion of a 1000 burning suns. it's not awful.
--new healthcare. this is too long a conversation but suffice to say that all the healthcare and soc security stuff boils down to the bubble of baby boomers coming through who as a group are selfish people who have never exerienced being told no and not getting their way and they make me want to puke just thinking about it. so we are overreacting to a temporary problem that alas needs a reaction because of the scale
--guns. handguns, rifles, shotguns. good. all that other crazy sh8t. bad. folks don't need that for sport or otherwise.
--gay marriage. lost. lost it 15 years ago. nobody under the age of 30 cares. and why should they care? marriage is a longstanding institution. of course, who wants to live in an institution? (thank you, thank you here all week)
--fracking. it's technology. i am no luddite
--innovation. support it. we should have 100 silicon valleys versus the 4/5 we have now. make inventing stuff cool. that should be a federally supported program. making nerds cool


i am sure there 1000 more issues. but this is where the gop should be
   1948. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:00 PM (#4293311)

Having everyone vote on election day is not "vote suppression."


What about allowing predominantly Republican precincts to vote early while restricting predominantly Democratic precincts to voting on Election Day, which is what was actually happening in Ohio?
   1949. Guapo Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:00 PM (#4293312)
I viewed Romney as the frontrunner for 2012 after McCain lost in 2008.
   1950. DA Baracus Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:00 PM (#4293313)
Indiana's actually a really tough state to poll because it's got THE most stringent rules for polling and phone contact of any state -- I generally trust Howey-Gauge above all others and they had a monster number out for Donnelly (+11) last week.


That's a huge outlier from other polls. For the sake of sanity though, I hope it's right.
   1951. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:01 PM (#4293314)
Yeah, he definitely reined in guys like John "Obama is a lazy, foreign, unAmerican idiot who just wants to be cool" Sununu.


And thus the caveat "as much as anyone could have." I don't think it's possible to run a GOP candidacy against Barack Obama that was less racist than the Romney campaign. The fact that Sununu and snide little jokes about birth certificates are the best the GOP can do is the gist of the problem.
   1952. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:01 PM (#4293316)
greg

the dvd was sent out by a third party.

they approached the gop first to see if they could send out nationally.
   1953. Greg K Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:02 PM (#4293317)
greg

the dvd was sent out by a third party.

they approached the gop first to see if they could send out nationally.

Ah that makes sense, thanks!
   1954. DA Baracus Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:04 PM (#4293318)
Romney 2012, McCain 2008, Bush 2000, Dole 1996, Bush 1988, Reagan 1980. The Republican Party runs a tight ship.


Worst party boat ever.
   1955. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:04 PM (#4293319)
Yeah, he definitely reined in guys like John "Obama is a lazy, foreign, unAmerican idiot who just wants to be cool" Sununu.
I think the issue was actual criticism of Obama's race; the issue wasn't whether Romney could prevent Democrats from playing the race card and claiming that anything other than deification is racist.
   1956. bob gee Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:05 PM (#4293320)
harvey - i lean liberal but agree with almost everything you posted in 1947 exc. fracking (am against it, but willing to see if somehow all the studies out there are wrong).

i know someone who hates obama with the passion of a thousand suns (possible racism) and line-votes R unless he knows the person but pretty much agrees with everything you posted above, excluding the fracking thing.

(Edit: this person also believes that the oil companies should give back a bunch of their profits, along with wall st firms. i tell him he's more socialist than he accuses obama of being!)
   1957. Kiko Sakata Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:05 PM (#4293321)
Honest question, when's the last time the immediate post-election front runner, if such a thing exists, actually won their party's nomination?


Vice Presidents Bush and Gore are the obvious ones. But in general, the Republicans do something similar to this more often than not. Reagan, Bush, Dole, McCain, and Romney were all the runners-up in the previous open primary campaign. The exception was George W. Bush in 2000, in large part, I think, because 1996 was similar to 2012, where the runners-up in the primaries weren't particularly mainstream (Buchanan, Forbes, am I forgetting somebody; similarly, I can't see Santorum winning the GOP nomination in 2016). If the Republican Party settles on a 2016 frontrunner (which they may not do), and he decides to run, I'd be surprised if he doesn't get the nomination.

EDIT: On the Dem side, Mondale would also qualify.
   1958. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:09 PM (#4293324)
fracking is just amazing. why deal in the extreme energy requirements of drilling offshore when you can sit in north dakota? no major environmentl issues. no hostile state agencies. local leaders desperate for jobs for the populace

if you gotta sacrifice a few cows along the way so be it.
   1959. Lassus Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4293325)
--fracking. it's technology. i am no luddite

So you're fine having it done with your own water table/aquifer?

EDIT: You answered it as I typed, but as long as you're willing to have them do it where you live and get your water from, I suppose that's consistent.
   1960. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4293326)
What about allowing predominantly Republican precincts to vote early while restricting predominantly Democrats to voting on Election Day, which is what was actually happening in Ohio?


Don't go confusing David with facts. He has ideology to worship.
   1961. Bitter Mouse Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4293327)
i may be nuts but i am not wrong.


Yeah, sorry about that. In a rush for a meeting and hurried. Should have said wrong (because I think you are), and nuts was a very poor choice of words. I do think you are wrong though, but that is OK.

Regarding 2016 I think HRC is a wildcard, much like Gore in 2004 was. Their entering changes the race very substantially and it is not really possible to predict as it is really just one person's (OK small group of people's) decision, there is no logic there.

EDIT: Horrendous typos. I blame hunger. Off to lunch.
   1962. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4293328)
HW - I'm with you (understanding and, for the most part, in agreement with you^), apart from on health care, where I honestly don't know what you'd advocate (a subject for which I think there is no one right answer, and a variety of possible improvements on the current and likely future systems). Would you mind giving a thirty word or less follow-up?


^ I'm not well read on it, but what I know of fracking seems like a bad idea. I need to learn - it will likely take place not too too far from my house (and a large lake) sometime in the next few years...
   1963. Greg K Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:12 PM (#4293329)
Weird, I'd never heard of fracking before. I was about to tell you Battlestar Galactica nerds to take it to the TV show thread.
   1964. DA Baracus Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:12 PM (#4293330)
--fracking. it's technology. i am no luddite


When it comes to energy solutions, you don't usually see "it's technology" as an argument for more oil production.
   1965. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:13 PM (#4293331)
So what would the country look like now if McCain had won the presidency instead of Bush in 2000?


Double digit unemployment. Recession bordering on depression continuing apace. Much more like England than the current US recovery.

Not to mention two more Alito clones on the Supreme Court instead of Sotomayor and Kagan.

-------------------------------

Harvey (#1947),

Details of your position are always appreciated, especially in threads that fly by this quickly. I'm assuming, then, that you agree that bashing Hillary in the fashion that you were alluding to might not be such a great idea in a general election.
   1966. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:13 PM (#4293332)
Wasnt able to follow along with all the posts over the weekend due to family constants. Had to say "Wreck-it Ralph" was better than I thought it was going to be.

With regards to the Civil War issue, there was no way that the South was going to win. I think getting England or France to intervene was a pipe dream by the South akin to a the A's getting a bid name free-agent to sign to play 3b for them.


Also after speaking to my HS classmates who are all in their mod to early 40's, they think there might be civil disturbances like there was in the 60's if the economy tanks again. These are all right wing to right leaning people which made me wonder if people really think that there could actually be a Civil War again?
   1967. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:13 PM (#4293333)
bitter

no worries

   1968. DA Baracus Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:13 PM (#4293334)
Weird, I'd never heard of fracking before. I was about to tell you Battlestar Galactica nerds to take it to the TV show thread.


Gods damn it, that's fraking without a "c". You should know this.
   1969. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:15 PM (#4293335)
So what would the country look like now if McCain had won the presidency instead of Bush in 2000?

Double digit unemployment. Recession bordering on depression continuing apace. Much more like England than the current US recovery.

Not to mention two more Alito clones on the Supreme Court instead of Sotomayor and Kagan.
Both of you read the question wrong. It was not "What would the country look like if McCain had won instead of Obama in 2008?" It was "What would the country look like if McCain had won instead of Bush in 2000?"
   1970. tshipman Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:15 PM (#4293336)
With the exception of his position on the new healthcare bills, Harveys' 1947 is essentially Obama's 2nd term agenda. Except Obama wouldn't dare to regulate guns.

It is to lol.
   1971. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:16 PM (#4293337)
Can you guess which list represents the midterm election years, and which list is from Presidential election years? Careful, though: the answer is incredibly not tricky.

Yes, you win the argument if we change the parameters into a completely different argument. Well done.

***
Clinton got 53.4% of the votes that went either R or D. That is the only relevant number, as 100% of the House Reps elected were either R's or D's.

Ludicrous. There were essentially two Republicans in both the '92 and '96 elections.

Unbelievable. You hand wave away Carter's under-performance in 1976 because the D's already had a huge majority, and then excuse Nixon and Reagan's under-performance because the Dems had a huge majority.

How is it "unbelievable"? The Dems already held 291 seats in the House before Carter won in 1976. How much additional upside potential do you figure the Dems had?

As for Reagan, he gained 34 seats in 1980 -- in the fifth Congressional election since the 1972 redistricting -- and then 16 more in 1984. Those were nice gains, especially in the midst of a three-decade Dem stranglehold on the House. (And the idea that 1984 counts as an Electoral College "trouncing" but 1980 did not was a fine piece of cherry-picking.)
   1972. McCoy Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:16 PM (#4293338)
At this point I think they should let people vote via the internet.
   1973. Der-K and the statistical werewolves. Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:16 PM (#4293339)
Maybe they just dislike McCain that much?
   1974. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:16 PM (#4293340)
I think both of you guys are right here. Romney made the correct tactical decision, but to Harvey's point, he also made the moral decision. I don't know that you can separate those decisions, but to Romney's credit he did put the chains on the race-baiting dogs in the GOP as much as anyone could have.
Sorry, but anyone who thinks Romney wouldn't have gone through the race calling Obama "that filthy ######\", if it polled well, hasn't been paying attention.
   1975. Lassus Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4293342)
At this point I think they should let people vote via the internet.

As long as we want three hackers from REDDIT fighting with seven or eight hackers from Singapore over the next president, sure.

(I'm being flip, it's probably a good idea, but the implementation scares me more than paper and pencil.)
   1976. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4293344)
post 1972 has a point in that we trust the fidelitys of the world with 401ks and bank online but cannot vote online
   1977. tshipman Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4293345)
Both of you read the question wrong. It was not "What would the country look like if McCain had won instead of Obama in 2008?" It was "What would the country look like if McCain had won instead of Bush in 2000?"


Yup. I think things are mostly the same. McCain was from the NeoCon wing of the party, right? So the incentives to go into Iraq are still there. The tax cuts probably happen regardless. Maybe just one instead of two?

I don't know what McCain's signature issue would be, like Bush wanted education to be his. Maybe immigration? He seems to genuinely care about that. Maybe climate change legislation? Not sure. In any case, trade out NCLB for some kind of immigration bill. Or maybe campaign finance. Not sure.

Obama still gets elected. We don't have torture as an institutional policy, so that's a big plus. *probably* a less toxic Republican brand in general.
   1978. greenback calls it soccer Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:20 PM (#4293346)
Maybe they just dislike McCain that much?

Maybe they think an R would've won in 2008 if McCain would've won in 2000 (and presumably 2004).
   1979. Steve Treder Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:20 PM (#4293347)
Sorry, but anyone who thinks Romney wouldn't have gone through the race calling Obama "that filthy ######\", if it polled well, hasn't been paying attention.

Yes. If Romney hasn't demonstrated that he is readily willing to say anything, anything at all, if he thinks it gains him an electoral edge, no one ever has.
   1980. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:21 PM (#4293349)
The bottom line: our model predicts Democrats will win 194 seats (44.6%), one more than they currently hold, with a one in four chance that they will take back the House.
It'd be helpful to know what level of certainty they're applying to that one-seat gain, but if that's an "on-balance" probability, then the 25% chance the Dems'll net 25 seats seems...high.

Yes, they're predicting the Dems have a 1 in 4 chance of winning ~30 House races in which they currently trail. But they're also predicting that Romney has just a 1 in 6 chance of overcoming a 2-point deficit in Ohio. The two seem out of whack.
   1981. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:21 PM (#4293351)
Not to mention two more Alito clones on the Supreme Court instead of Sotomayor and Kagan.


A point well taken.

Fracking is one of those things that conservatives should be extremely wary of, except it's "free energy" and "technology" so they just go all in without even asking about consequences and unknowns.
   1982. Andere Richtingen Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:22 PM (#4293352)
fracking is just amazing. why deal in the extreme energy requirements of drilling offshore when you can sit in north dakota? no major environmentl issues. no hostile state agencies. local leaders desperate for jobs for the populace

if you gotta sacrifice a few cows along the way so be it.


I'm strongly opposed to fracking here, pretty much for one reason: The governor of PA. Gas is good -- you get a shitload of BTUs out of one Carbon atom. It's homemade energy. I am for big investment in alternative energy, but we're decades away from that. A big source of existing domestic paleofuels should help in making it over that hump. Yes, there are negative environmental consequences, but they replace relatively equal consequences from coal and oil. In the real marketplace, it keeps us sucking a teat that will eventually go dry, but there is no inherent reason we can't frack and develop alternatives at the same time.

But this ####### idiot Corbett resists every attempt to regulate or tax it. Screw that.
   1983. Lassus Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:23 PM (#4293354)
EDIT: You answered it as I typed, but as long as you're willing to have them do it where you live and get your water from, I suppose that's consistent.

HW - I will ask specifically, though. You're fine with this technology, tomorrow, being constructed where your family, your grandkids, will be drinking water from for the next 15 years or so?
   1984. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4293355)
lassus

yup. give me a break from the think of the children stuff already. the melodrama isn't required in asking a question

the whole 'corporations are willing to kill people to make moneny' is so old i am surprised you went there

and do we not have sophisticated water testing methods? i am not simultaneously advocating dismantling the epa.

you can one and the other ya'know. one science to push things forward and another science as oversight
   1985. formerly dp Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:27 PM (#4293357)
no major environmental issues.


Wait, what?
   1986. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:28 PM (#4293358)
What about allowing predominantly Republican precincts to vote early while restricting predominantly Democrats to voting on Election Day, which is what was actually happening in Ohio?
First, that still doesn't "suppress" anyone's vote.

Second, that's not remotely accurate. There was disparate effect, but it did not restrict Democratic precincts "to voting on Election Day." The issue was whether the early voting -- which would take place over the same weeks in each county (not by "precinct") -- would have extended evening hours or would be open primarily during business hours¹. Note that this affected only in-person early voting; it had no effect whatsoever on early voting by mail. Thus, unless you think the U.S. Postal Service is conspiring to keep Democrats from using mailboxes, it would prevent exactly nobody from voting.

Third, it was Democrats who were "allowing predominantly Republican precincts to vote early," because they believed that it benefitted them. (Each county set its own rules for early voting. When there was a tie, the SoS got to break the tie, and he had a consistent policy of breaking the tie in favor of shorter early voting hours. In Republican counties, there weren't ties because Democrats were voting for extended hours. If Democrats voted for shorter hours in those counties, then there would have been shorter hours. It was a bizarre quirk.)


¹Since most Democrats are on welfare, this would presumably disproportionately benefit them over people with jobs. (Ducking.)
   1987. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:29 PM (#4293359)
formerly

if you frack in north dakota and there is a water problem any impact on the population is minimal because there is hardly anyone there

it's not like contaminating an aquifier in pennsylvania
   1988. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4293361)
RE: the SCOTUS, here are the current justices listed by age:

Ruth Bader Ginsberg - 79
Antonin Scalia - 76
Anthony Kennedy - 76
Stephen Breyer - 74
Clarence Thomas - 64
Samuel Alito - 62
Sonia Sotomayor - 58
John Roberts - 57
Elena Kagan - 52

You could reasonably see 2 or 3 appointments during the next presidential administration's term. If Obama wins, Ginsberg is probably near retirement, and Breyer might consider it. That would allow the liberal caucus to hold serve on the SCOTUS. If Kennedy retired, the liberal caucus could gain a seat on the bench.

If Obama wins, nothing short of a massive coronary or auto accident is going to move Scalia off the court. Actually, I don't think Scalia's ego allows him to retire even if Romney shocks the world on Tuesday. The other justices are young enough to assume they're locked into the bench for another couple of decades barring sudden illness or accident.
   1989. tshipman Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:30 PM (#4293362)
Yes, they're predicting the Dems have a 1 in 4 chance of winning ~30 House races in which they currently trail. But they're also predicting that Romney has just a 1 in 6 chance of overcoming a 2-point deficit in Ohio. The two seem out of whack.


There's much greater volume of polling in Ohio than there is in any single house race. This is not that complicated.
   1990. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:31 PM (#4293365)
post 1972 has a point in that we trust the fidelitys of the world with 401ks and bank online but cannot vote online
There's no anonymity with Fidelity. If a hacker tries to transfer money from your bank account, it can be tracked and undone. If a hacker casts your vote for Obama instead of Gary Johnson, then there's no way for you to prove that you didn't intend to vote for Obama; there can't be a record of who you actually voted for, because of the secret ballot. (I'm not saying that there aren't ways to overcome some of these obstacles; I'm just saying that it isn't remotely parallel to online banking.)
   1991. Poulanc Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4293366)
At this point I think they should let people vote via the internet.


They already are.
   1992. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:32 PM (#4293367)
justice thomas will not leave the bench before his death

i likely won't be around to be proven right or not but i am 100 percent certain of that forecast
   1993. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:33 PM (#4293371)
The Indiana and Missouri senate races will surely be instructive to someone in the party.

Don't be so sure. Mourdock is down 2 or 3 points in a race that's polled back and forth for months.
A Mourdock loss isn't going to be seen as resulting from anything other than a slip of the tongue. No one rethinks their core beliefs after losing a close race. They rethink tactics.

If Obama wins tomorrow, isn't Rubio the obvious R frontrunner for 2016? Charismatic, from Florida, and potentially able to shore up the Republicans demographic problem.
That's a very tough call. Clearly, Obama would be getting spanked if the Repubs could snag even 40% of the Latino vote, but is Rubio really that charismatic? And if indeed he's the crown prince of the tea party movement, how likely is that to play well nationally? At least Romney can pretend to play a moderate, which is the only reason this election got close. I doubt Rubio even has that inclination.

Note to Davey: moving the goalposts so that anything short of brownshirts firing on Democrats as they break towards a polling station doesn't constitute vote supression isn't even an argument. I don't know that you can do better, but, do better.
   1994. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:34 PM (#4293373)
david

to most people they place far more value on their finances than on their vote
   1995. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:34 PM (#4293374)
Christie will have no chance unseating Cuomo in 2020.

Serious question: What are Chris Christie's odds of being alive in 2020 if he doesn't drastically alter his lifestyle? He's a 50-year-old hot-tempered Type A personality in a high-stress job who's been morbidly obese -- estimates: 300 to 335 pounds -- for years. Modern medicine is amazing, but he really seems to be playing with fire.
   1996. Lassus Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4293375)
yup. give me a break from the think of the children stuff already. the melodrama isn't required in asking a question

Fair enough. I accept that criticism, sorry.


if you frack in north dakota and there is a water problem any impact on the population is minimal because there is hardly anyone there... it's not like contaminating an aquifier in pennsylvania

Well, they want to frack where I live, into my aquifer, and PA is not far off either. I'll ask again, without the melodrama - are you fine with them fracking within your own aquifer, where you live? If you're ok with them fracking where no one lives, that's different, and that isn't what you said.
   1997. Shredder Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4293376)
HW - I will ask specifically, though. You're fine with this technology, tomorrow, being constructed where your family, your grandkids, will be drinking water from for the next 15 years or so?
Well, to be fair, I wouldn't worry about the drinking water. It's hard to drink the stuff coming out of your tap when it's on fire. That's what bottled water is for.
   1998. Ron J2 Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4293377)
A lot of regulars have multiple accounts?


I have 3. Imaginatively named Ron Johnson, Ron J and Ron J2.

Mostly because I couldn't be bothered to debug some weird cached password issues.
   1999. Shooty Survived the Shutdown of '14! Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4293379)
Rasmussen has it even in Ohio.
Angus Reid??? has Obama +4 in Pennsylvania
   2000. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 05, 2012 at 01:39 PM (#4293380)
Both of you read the question wrong. It was not "What would the country look like if McCain had won instead of Obama in 2008?" It was "What would the country look like if McCain had won instead of Bush in 2000?"

Oops, sorry. In that case, it would depend on whether we're talking about the early primary version of McCain or the McCain that took note of South Carolina and adjusted accordingly.

I doubt his Supreme Court choices or immigration proposals would have been much different. No matter who was president, the last unpleasant SC surprise for the GOP is likely to have been Souter. And I doubt if the co-sponsor of the McCain-Kennedy immigration reform bill would have sounded like the finger in the wind McCain of more recent years.

On 9/11 and Iraq, I doubt if McCain's initial reaction would have been much different than Bush's. But then neither would Gore's. The possible difference between McCain and Bush is that McCain would have had much better trained instincts when it came to resisting the rosy scenarios laid out by the chickenhawk civilians regarding cakewalks and such. He'd have had the standing to ask the sort of hard questions that a Bush might have been afraid to ask. The ideal president in a situation like that would have been an Eisenhower, and the absolute worst would have been either G. W. Bush or LBJ. We plunged into Iraq feet first due to a combination of credulous reception of faulty intelligence and the pre-dispositions of the crew that Bush had assembled around him. It's possible that the "good" McCain might have had a much less ideological set of advisers, and much more inclination to ask hard questions from the various intelligence sources. But cudda shudda wudda, and we'll never know.
Page 20 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogRon Washington Acknowledges Infidelity, Doesn’t Explain Why He Resigned
(48 - 3:52pm, Sep 19)
Last: Into the Void

NewsblogOT: Politics, September, 2014: ESPN honors Daily Worker sports editor Lester Rodney
(3315 - 3:52pm, Sep 19)
Last: Ray (RDP)

NewsblogJoe Girardi put Derek Jeter’s farewell tour ahead of the team
(177 - 3:52pm, Sep 19)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-18-2014
(159 - 3:33pm, Sep 19)
Last: Spahn Insane

NewsblogDave Kreiger: New Baseball Hall of Fame voting rules
(76 - 3:08pm, Sep 19)
Last: Booey

NewsblogNew approach on offense has Pirates in playoff contention this season
(23 - 3:02pm, Sep 19)
Last: PASTE Thinks This Trout Kid Might Be OK (Zeth)

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(833 - 2:53pm, Sep 19)
Last: Poster Nutbag

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-19-2014
(31 - 2:52pm, Sep 19)
Last: Gamingboy

NewsblogUmpire ejects Braves fan for heckling Bryce Harper
(69 - 2:42pm, Sep 19)
Last: Rusty Priske

NewsblogPedro pens a letter to Clayton Kershaw
(55 - 1:54pm, Sep 19)
Last: A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose)

NewsblogJoe Girardi: ‘Pitch the right way’
(63 - 1:40pm, Sep 19)
Last: Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad)

NewsblogBowman: A year’s worth of struggles leads reason to wonder what changes are in store for the Braves
(59 - 1:23pm, Sep 19)
Last: Crispix reaches boiling point with lackluster play

NewsblogIt’s quite the turnaround for Angels and General Manager Jerry Dipoto
(11 - 1:19pm, Sep 19)
Last: SouthSideRyan

NewsblogKeri: How Washington Built a World Series Favorite
(39 - 1:10pm, Sep 19)
Last: Danny

NewsblogAraton: The Other Side of a Derek Jeter Hustle Play
(25 - 1:04pm, Sep 19)
Last: Greg K

Page rendered in 0.9497 seconds
52 querie(s) executed