HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » radius777 » Journal
Page: 1

radius777

Profile Information

Member since: Sun Sep 11, 2016, 10:37 PM
Number of posts: 1,065

Journal Archives

Sanders will only win some white states

that resemble the VT demographic, like he did last time. (And there will be less or perhaps no caucuses.. even many of the states he won he actuallly would've lost if faced a primary instead, which has far greater turnout.)

He was destroyed with PoC and metro areas, which are much more the base of the modern Dem party that heartland populists. Hillary won almost every metro area and almost every diverse state across the country.

He also isn't winning any of the southern states that Hillary utterly destroyed him in it, where the Dem constituency is heavily black. Recall Bernie dissed those voters, calling them conservative, also.

Also, this time Sanders isn't coming out nowhere... he's a known quantity and many rank-and-file Democratic voters.. ie Clinton/Obama Dems.. can't stand Sanders and blame him for damaging Hillary etc, view him as a Nader.

And the young'uns usually want something new.. Sanders is old news by now. He won't get the kidz like last time and millennials are moving into middle aged.. will want more establishment/centrist Dems.

Then you're going to have new faces like Booker, Harris and perhaps Castro running... centrist types who can reboot the Obama coalition.

Stir it all together and Sanders will get far less votes than he did last time, when it was a one on one with Hillary, who played 'prevent defense' and didn't really fight him - knowing she would later have to unite the party.

The media also wanted a "horserace, not a coronation" and built Bernie up into something much bigger than he was... race was mathematicallly over by early March. Sanders hung around ironically to try to flip superdelegates and there were some Berners who were hoping Hillary would be indicted and were waiting for Comey to release his findings (Comey came out with his grandstanding speech in June, iirc), had visions of H in an orange jumpsuit with Bernie rising victoriously to assume the nomination lol.

FL expert Steve Schale confident about H win there.

I saw him on MSNBC (iirc w/Lawrence O'donnell) yesterday, said feels very confident (9/10) of H win from analyzing early voting data, i.e Obama coalition, ground game, latino turnout.

http://steveschale.com/blog/2016/11/8/we-made-it-america.html
But I want to start with a couple of numbers. First: 67. 67% was the percentage of the electorate was white in 2012 -- which by the way was down from 71 in 2008. My foundational assumption was if the electorate was more diverse than 2012, the basic coalition that got President Obama over the line in 2012 would hold. We finish early voting at 65.7 white, 15.3 hispanic, and 13.1 black, with the black number closing in on the 2012 share, and the white number down.

The other thing working into play here is the explosion of turnout in Central Florida and Miami. If you reweighted the 2012 election by the current 2016 share of vote by market, Obama would have beaten Romney by almost twice the 2012 margin, or 1.5%. Under same scenario, if you apply the 2012 margins by county to the 2016 turnout, you end up with a nearly 2 point Clinton win. And none of this factors in the likelihood that race will drive larger margins in some areas -- and smaller Republican ones in others.
...
While Republicans talked about Trump's ability to turn-out low propensity voters, it is Clinton who has turned out 250,000 more low propensity voters.
...
My good friend Tom Eldon, a longtime FL pollster and fellow oenophile, asked me today "On scale of 1-10, how are you feeling?" If I was a 7 going into 2012 (just ask every reporter who heard me make my pitch for why Obama would win a state no one thought he would), and a 10 in 2008, Tom agreed he was also a 9 (sorry to out you bro).

Really it is this simple: If the Clinton operation hits its marks tonight, she's going to win. It's going to be fairly close, probably in the 1.5-2.5 % margin race. It's hard to nail down exactly because I don't have access to campaign polling (real polling, not public polls).
....
Around 8pm, the Panhandle will come in. Romney won the Panama City and Pensacola media markets by about 180K votes. So to be super generous, spot Trump 250K in the Central Time Zone. Unless there is something really odd with the reporting - like Dade or Palm Beach report nothing before 8, if she is up in the 300K margin, it will be hard for Trump to overcome. If it is 400 at that point, you can go home.

The Onion: Nate Silver Gunned Down Attempting To Cross Mexican Border With All 2016 Polling Data.

**Satire**

The Onion - Nate Silver Gunned Down Attempting To Cross Mexican Border With All 2016 Polling Data.



Authorities say Silver’s body was found facedown still clutching onto several dozen Marist College surveys.
NEWS
November 4, 2016
Vol 52 Issue 43 News · Election 2016
...
Officials stated that in addition to the thousands of presidential election polls found strewn about Silver’s 1984 Oldsmobile 98 following the incident, investigators discovered hundreds of weighted congressional forecasts hidden within the car’s wheel wells. The entirety of Silver’s polls-only and polls-plus forecasts since the beginning of the primaries were also reportedly discovered inside the car’s hollowed-out speaker system.

“After he sideswiped a barricade, his trunk popped open, and all these Zogby and Pew surveys came flying out all over the road,” said long-haul trucker Ernesto Nunez, who described watching Silver struggle out of his wrecked vehicle still clutching an armful of high-sample-size phone and online opinion polls. “Even after they struck him a couple times, you could see he was still trying to hold onto as many A-plus–rated surveys as he could.”

“He might have made it, too, if he’d just dumped all the Monmouth University tracking polls on the ground and made a quick break for the Rio Grande,” Nunez added.
...

Todd: Pence on style, Kaine relentless, exposed contradictions.

Chuck Todd said that while Pence won style points for a potential 2020 run, and Kaine may've interrupted too much for some, Kaine's attacks were relentless and effective in exposing contradictions between Trump and Pence's actual stances, forcing him to defend Trump, while Pence kept shrugging and denying things that both he and Trump have said. And that over the coming days it will continue to gnaw away at them as the media exposes the contradictions.

Robert Costa, Rachel, Eugene Robinson also said similar things. Also about Pence constantly shrugging his shoulders 'huh' and failing to defend against Kaine's barrage of attacks against Trump.

Todd also said that the VP debate (unlike the presidential debate) is more about appealing to and consolidating the base, which both did effectively. Matthews also said similar things, but saw a bigger victory for Pence that the rest did (but saw it more in the context of Pence 2020 than anything else).

Lawrence Odonnel, "I don't think Pence won this debate, left material very rich for Clinton campaign to use.(contradictions, denials)." He said Kaine had no such contradictions, consistent.

Remember, the VP debate isn't a faceoff between each other, but about who can more effectively attack and expose the top of the opposing ticket.

Carville: both sides needed to do what they did (excite the base), will take what they need, by Sunday will be forgotten.

edit to add:

Schmidt: Pence looked good on style, Kaine like special teams guy on football team, ran down the field get dirty, Pence shaking head denying reality, what remains when we look back a week from now, Tim Kaine the one who scored the points.

Murphy: Kaine's content was good stuff, everytime he mentioned Trump he was scoring points. Pence ducked alot of the Trump defense to sell himself long term.

Wallace: didn't like Kaine's performance, thought Pence more statesman like, but he couldn't defend the indefensible (Trump), doesn't think would make difference overall.

Prediction markets stable ahead of Wikileaks dump.

After the debate, the markets moved sharply in Hillary's favor and continued to do so as Trump melted down over Machado.

When the NYT tax return story broke on Saturday, I expected Trump's numbers to tank further but the markets remained stable (have moved only about +1 Hillary) , most likely in anticipation of the Wikileaks dump, which the market (imo) believes will balance it out. If that is the case, Hillary is still in very good shape.

https://electionbettingodds.com



Betting markets react: Hillary 68.3% (+5.2) Trump 30.5% (-3.8%)


https://electionbettingodds.com/4hr.html

This morning (after some bad polls were released, and 538's shitty projections) she was down around 60% and he was up around 36%.

The upward movement today is mainly within the past 2 hours, which is the imo is the most objective metric of who won the debate. the fact that it moved so sharply (when on a typical day it barely moves) says that she won 'bigly' and he was a disaster. many people are saying

Gabby Giffords endorses Toomey over McGinty in tight PA senate race.

"PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) – As he seeks re-election to his U.S. Senate seat this November, Pennsylvania’s Pat Toomey can make an unusual claim. He is the sole Republican nationwide running with the endorsement of top U.S. gun control advocates Gabby Giffords and Michael Bloomberg.

That pair of endorsements could give the first-term senator an edge over Democratic challenger Katie McGinty, a former environmental official in the White House and the Pennsylvania governor’s office. The race is one of a handful of close contests on Nov. 8 that could determine whether Republicans, currently with a 54-46 majority, maintain control of the Senate.
...
Giffords has also endorsed Illinois Senator Mark Kirk, another Republican running for re-election, though Bloomberg has not weighed in on that race."
In Pennsylvania Senate race, unfamiliar battle lines on gun rights

------------
File this under the "with friends like these" and "missing the forest for the trees" categories - especially the PA race, which is very close.

Hey Gabby, wouldn't Hillary being elected with a Dem senate majority lead to more gun control legislation than a GOP senate? Democrats ARE the party of gun control after all, remember? And the GOP is the party of the NRA, remember?

This kind of stupidity is what's wrong with our side, in a nutshell.
Go to Page: 1