Jump to content

LooseGoose

2016 Presidential Election - Who will the nominees be? Make your prediction here.

Recommended Posts

Sanders! He polls better than Trump does in head to head match-ups than any other candidate, including Clinton. Vote Sanders in the primary and in the general and you won't get Trump in the White House.

If I thought Bernie had even a slight chance of actually winning the democratic nomination or even a reasonable chance of making it close I would consider voting for him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Cruz could win because he's basically an unlikeable pol with arch positions that won't fly in the general. I still think his nomination wouldn't be terrible for the country like Trumps would be and his current campaign already is.

I thought the mantra was "Who cares about winning, Trump must be stopped!"? If so, discussing Cruz's electablility is a moot point, instead you should be at Party City buying streamers and balloons at the thought of a Cruz nomination.

Regardless, your projection of Cruz is awfully biased by a 50 mile radius of DC. It just doesn't carry that far outside of your circle and that of the establishment vampire havens. Cruz's unfavorability ratings are not that bad. Better than or on par with Hillary's, by most polling. Both Cruz and Hillary have an uphill battle because they are establishment politicians with divisive policies, at a time when voters are overwhelmingly polling for a preference for an outsider. But if those are the nominees, one of them will win. Both parties will gladly hold their noses and vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought the mantra was "Who cares about winning, Trump must be stopped!"? If so, discussing Cruz's electablility is a moot point, instead you should be at Party City buying streamers and balloons at the thought of a Cruz nomination.

Regardless, your projection of Cruz is awfully biased by a 50 mile radius of DC. It just doesn't carry that far outside of your circle and that of the establishment vampire havens. Cruz's unfavorability ratings are not that bad. Better than or on par with Hillary's, by most polling. Both Cruz and Hillary have an uphill battle because they are establishment politicians with divisive policies, at a time when voters are overwhelmingly polling for a preference for an outsider. But if those are the nominees, one of them will win. Both parties will gladly hold their noses and vote.

I'm excited to have these chats about why a politician who consistently polls better than Hillary might be a better nominee than the one who doesn't poll as well....lets table them for after the one who would be terrible is defeated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If I thought Bernie had even a slight chance of actually winning the democratic nomination or even a reasonable chance of making it close I would consider voting for him.

Don't be the one responsible for Hillary winning Michigan by one vote. It's only they primary so you're not throwing your vote away. Furthermore, Bernie polls better than Hillary does in a head-to-head matchup against Trump.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Cruz' part. His un-likeablility took a big hit...meaning he became more likeable when I saw the video of him twirling his daughter at the debate. I can imagine that Cruz is an awkward guy who rallies to his family but has a giant brain and knows the law/constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the sake of discussion, and not based on any data or polling, if a trump-hillary or trump-Bernie race was something like 60-40 in favor of the democrat, I would gladly give that up in return for a 50-50 race between Cruz/Rubio/Kasich and one of the dems. Or maybe even for a 60-40 race in favor the republican.

I'm wondering why either of the parties is so beholden to rigid delegate math in determining their nominee for the election. The primaries obviously serve a purpose in provided information on who the strongest candidate is, but I'm not sure that is what is happening in the republican race. It makes you think that maybe the democrats have it right with their whole super delegate thing. If the GOP had superdelegates, there would be far less worry about trump actually getting the nomination.

It also makes me wonder whether it would make sense for the parties to be more selective or restrictive in who it allows to run for office in their party.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was looking at the 538 weighted aggregate which had Cruz and Kasich above 15 slightly more comfortably than Rubio. Let me check again.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/election-2016/primary-forecast/michigan-republican/#polls-only

Trump leads at 36, followed by Kasich at 23, Cruz at 22, and Rubio at 14.

It seems incredibly unlikely that any candidate will get above 50 to take all the delegates. So to me the best bet to keep trump's overall accumulation of delegates to a minimum is to make sure all three challengers get above the 15 threshold.

If Kasich is the one that needs the help to get above 15, I would vote for him, but that's not what I'm seeing.

It depends if you are looking at the polls or 538's polls-plus. I don't particularly like the polls-plus. It appears to me to give too big of a boost to endorsements, most of which I don't think play that big of a role. It also depends upon poll weighting.

Also, your figures appear to have come after 538 updated with two new polls from today... whereas my comments were made before those polls. The new polls are heavily weighted and in both Kasich has done better than most of the previous polling. Further, the two polls from today definitely show Rubio struggling and below the 15% threshold. It's all fluid. This morning Kasich looked weakest, and now, it may well be Rubio. Trump still running about 20 points higher than 2nd place though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Don't be the one responsible for Hillary winning Michigan by one vote. It's only they primary so you're not throwing your vote away. Furthermore, Bernie polls better than Hillary does in a head-to-head matchup against Trump.

What do you mean by "it's only they primary so you're not throwing your vote away"?

I don't see Bernie coming close to Hillary tomorrow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It depends if you are looking at the polls or 538's polls-plus. I don't particularly like the polls-plus. It appears to me to give too big of a boost to endorsements, most of which I don't think play that big of a role. It also depends upon poll weighting.

Also, your figures appear to have come after 538 updated with two new polls from today... whereas my comments were made before those polls. The new polls are heavily weighted and in both Kasich has done better than most of the previous polling. Further, the two polls from today definitely show Rubio struggling and below the 15% threshold. It's all fluid. This morning Kasich looked weakest, and now, it may well be Rubio. Trump still running about 20 points higher than 2nd place though.

I think polls-plus has been more accurate to date... Polls only tends to overrate Trump. I could be wrong, though, because I'm only going based on anecdotal evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm excited to have these chats about why a politician who consistently polls better than Hillary might be a better nominee than the one who doesn't poll as well....lets table them for after the one who would be terrible is defeated.

You can chat about that, with whoever is willing to listen. But I was discussing favorability, not electability. Favorability because you claim that Cruz is unlikeable, which really isn't that true, because he runs just under neutral by most polling.

If you are intending to turn this into a debate about electability, you would be pushing Trump. Cruz and Rubio don't appeal to independents. Kasich might, but he should be in the democratic party. Trump is going to pull in independents. And if he were to lose, it would because of the establishment bails on him. Which it might, but then the establishment would have no room to cry on the matter of a Hillary presidency, the SCOTUS loss, and loss of the Senate majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For Cruz' part. His un-likeablility took a big hit...meaning he became more likeable when I saw the video of him twirling his daughter at the debate. I can imagine that Cruz is an awkward guy who rallies to his family but has a giant brain and knows the law/constitution.

I think his favorite part of the Constitution is that one part about how Democratic Presidents shall not name SCOTUS nominees in their last year in office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think polls-plus has been more accurate to date... Polls only tends to overrate Trump. I could be wrong, though, because I'm only going based on anecdotal evidence.

I think it has been very hit and miss, not only with Trump, but down the line with the 3rd/4th spots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the sake of discussion, and not based on any data or polling, if a trump-hillary or trump-Bernie race was something like 60-40 in favor of the democrat, I would gladly give that up in return for a 50-50 race between Cruz/Rubio/Kasich and one of the dems. Or maybe even for a 60-40 race in favor the republican.

I'm wondering why either of the parties is so beholden to rigid delegate math in determining their nominee for the election. The primaries obviously serve a purpose in provided information on who the strongest candidate is, but I'm not sure that is what is happening in the republican race. It makes you think that maybe the democrats have it right with their whole super delegate thing. If the GOP had superdelegates, there would be far less worry about trump actually getting the nomination.

It also makes me wonder whether it would make sense for the parties to be more selective or restrictive in who it allows to run for office in their party.

I think generally the problem is ballot access. It's really difficult to get on the ballot, and the with the current system geared towards propping up two parties, letting the establishment big-wigs hijack the process and subvert their own party members is a real problem.

Even the Libertarian and Green and Constitution Parties are not on the ballot in all states. The libertarians on like on 48 states... Green on 20 states... and Constitution on 13 states. How can anyone ever run for the office outside of the Republicrat paradigm, if we aren't allowing ballot access on all states even for major 2nd tier parties? And frankly, those parties also don't have a very transparent process in their nominating either. But if they were on the ballot in all states, at least in a general election people would have more choice, making it less important to having a "real say" in the outcome of the Republicrat nomination process.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What do you mean by "it's only they primary so you're not throwing your vote away"?

I don't see Bernie coming close to Hillary tomorrow.

Bernie's polling within 5 points if Hillary in Michigan. So not only we'll he be close, he may well win the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think his favorite part of the Constitution is that one part about how Democratic Presidents shall not name SCOTUS nominees in their last year in office.

You mean, its a living breathing document when it favors one side and subject to strict interpretation when it doesn't?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Bernie's polling within 5 points if Hillary in Michigan. So not only we'll he be close, he may well win the state.

Which poll is this?

I respect your advocacy for Bernie but everything I have seen shows him as a big long shot to win Michigan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You mean, its a living breathing document when it favors one side and subject to strict interpretation when it doesn't?

yep that's the one!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
howarddean.jpg

that sounds like a hint that Dean does not think Sanders is 'right for the country'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think Dean makes a fair point. Now, if people think superdelegates are a bad idea, that's fine. But they are part of the current system, and they explicitly aren't bound to vote for anyone. Otherwise there would be no point in having them.

Maybe they will get rid of them going forward. But I tend to think they will be around for a while, especially in light of this trump nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's been like 12 polls for the GOP Michigan primary in the last 10 days-ish. But Ohio, Florida, Illinois and NC have been rather sparse. Though I think Ohio and FL had one poll each drop today. Michigan polling aside, given the importance of these winner take all states, you'd think there would be more polling focus there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking of Howard Dean, I got to meet his brother yesterday at our Ann Arbor office. His brother runs Democracy For America and has endorsed Bernie. He came into the office and gave a pep talk to everyone. Told us to stay positive and that Bernie would win Michigan thanks to all the hard work we're doing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Dean makes a fair point. Now, if people think superdelegates are a bad idea, that's fine. But they are part of the current system, and they explicitly aren't bound to vote for anyone. Otherwise there would be no point in having them.

Maybe they will get rid of them going forward. But I tend to think they will be around for a while, especially in light of this trump nonsense.

Yeah, this concept of people voting for their preferred choice, nonsense indeed.

However, instead of pretending this is a problem that people are voting from Trump, why doesn't the GOP either 1) not let candidates that they won't support run on their platform, and/or 2) eliminate open primary/caucuses, so that they don't give the illusion that they care what non-establishment voters think, and/or 3) eliminate primary voting altogether except for appointed super delegates so that no one is under the false impression that their primary votes count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      96,829
    • Total Posts
      2,953,366
  • Who's Online (See full list)

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
×
×
  • Create New...