quote:Originally posted by rollainm: But that puts her back on the board. Does that mean she can be voted for again?
No. I think if Morbo doesn't choose to reassign his vote, she should be redropped from the list. Otherwise this will work more like a market than a survivor game, and while I think markets are cool, that's not what this is supposed to be.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
20 Barack Obama 12 Chris Dodd 11 Joe Biden 10 John Edwards 10 Dennis Kucinich 8 Bill Richardson 7 John McCain 5 Ron Paul 5 Mitt Romney 1 Rudy Giuliani
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
20 Barack Obama 12 Chris Dodd 11 Joe Biden 10 John Edwards 10 Dennis Kucinich 8 Bill Richardson 7 John McCain 4 Ron Paul 4 Mitt Romney
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
+1 Bill Richardson -1 Ron Paul -1 Barack Obama
19 Barack Obama 12 Chris Dodd 11 Joe Biden 9 John Edwards 9 Dennis Kucinich 9 Bill Richardson 7 John McCain 5 Mitt Romney 3 Ron Paul
Posts: 5362 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
21 Barack Obama 12 Chris Dodd 11 Joe Biden 9 John Edwards 9 Bill Richardson 8 Dennis Kucinich 4 Ron Paul 4 John McCain
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
21 Barack Obama 12 Chris Dodd 11 Joe Biden 8 John Edwards 8 Bill Richardson 8 Dennis Kucinich 5 Ron Paul 4 John McCain
Posts: 81 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
21 Barack Obama 13 Chris Dodd 11 Joe Biden 8 John Edwards 8 Bill Richardson 8 Dennis Kucinich 4 John McCain 3 Ron Paul
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Sep 1999
| IP: Logged |
21 Barack Obama 13 Chris Dodd 11 Joe Biden 8 Bill Richardson 7 John Edwards 7 Dennis Kucinich 5 John McCain 3 Ron Paul
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
22 Barack Obama 13 Chris Dodd 11 Joe Biden 7 Dennis Kucinich 6 Bill Richardson 6 John Edwards 5 John McCain 1 Ron Paul
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
My current feeling on the political climate right now is that conservatives don't feel particularly strongly about any candidate of theirs, but almost universally hate Clinton. No such negative feelings exist for Obama.
I think that if Obama gets to the general election, that he wins in a landslide, much like Bill Clinton before him. ( 1992 electoral map)
I think that if Clinton gets to the general election, every conservative in the country will come out and vote for "not Clinton", whomever that happens to be. She still may win, but it will be very close. I think it will probably come down to a couple of key states, much like the Bush-Gore race ( 2000 electoral map ).
The point of this post was that I think that this thread is pretty good evidence of my theory .
Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Those electoral maps got me to poking around for election data on wikipedia.
I think this is a fascinating graph. I'd love to figure out a way to systematically analyze it for trends. There are some that appear obvious:
- 1952 and 1992 were watershed type years; the first saw lots of states switching to (R) after years of (D) and the latter saw the inverse. 1988 and 1948 were obvious transition years, where the change began, but wasn't quite complete.
- 1964, and (to a lesser degree) 1976, were anomalies which saw a large scale, single election (D) defection, followed by a return for many solidly (R) states. 1976 seems obvious given Nixon's resignation and all that went with it; however the landslide of LBJ over Goldwater seems very odd to me; what about that election skewed so strongly to the Dems? Was it that Goldwater was so unpopular? I know he was a big departure from Eisenhower era Republicanism. Or was it (D) sympathy following the Kennedy assassination? Or was LBJ really just that popular after his first two years?
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
X, we have pretty much the same theory. The only thing I'd add is that if Republicans nominate someone (possibly Rudy) not considered pro-life enough it may suppress turnout among the religious right (or make them go for a third-party candidate). My offhand guess would be that the "not Clinton" turnout would still be a bigger factor, though.
Which is why it's baffling to me whenever I hear some Dems say they support Hillary because she's "most electable."
posted
Xavier: the prediction markets are coming to agree, it looks like.
Intrade's markets have Obama with a 16% chance of being elected President, and a 25.6% chance of winning the Democratic primary. So, the probability of him being elected president, given a primary win, is the probability of him winning the primary and the presidency (16%) divided by the probability he wins the primary (25.6%), or 62.5%.
Of course, Hillary is given a 43.1% chance of winning the Presidency, and a 66% chance of winning the nom, so her odds of winning the presidency if she wins the nomination are even greater, as a fairly large scale and regularly accurate prediction market sees it.
posted
I totally agree that Clinton won't win if the Dems are dumb enough to nominate her. The process is broken. It keeps nominating Democrats who can't win. Democrats are a shoo-in this year if they only will nominate anyone electable. Clinton just isn't. Too many people hate her. She's too liberal. New Hampshire looks nothing like America. We need to fix the process.
It's interesting that our game is so revealing, though, given that Hatrack looks nothing like America either.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Clinton just isn't. Too many people hate her. She's too liberal."
They don't hate her because she's too liberal... obama, kucinich, edwards, are all more liberal then she is. They hate her because the republican smear machine has been at her for about 14 years.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
At first it shocked me that McCain is the last Republican standing and there are still six Democrats around. But then I remember that after 8 years of Republicans in the white house most voters will swing Democrat.
Still it's surprising that Richardson, Biden, Kucinich, Dodd, and Edwards all defeated every Republican save McCain who is on the brink of death. Makes one wonder if perhaps most people simply wanted to make sure candidates they did not like were eliminated while the ones nobody really cares about stayed afloat.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Clinton just isn't. Too many people hate her. She's too liberal."
They don't hate her because she's too liberal... obama, kucinich, edwards, are all more liberal then she is. They hate her because the republican smear machine has been at her for about 14 years.
Thank you.
And Tatiana, people say she's the most electable because polls show she is the most electable. Polls are right more often than not, and she gets the highest rating against any Republican opposition, beating all of them in head to head matchups. Obama does too, for the moment, but by lesser margines, statistically insignificant ones.
Some of those polls are meaningless though. There's so much that could happen. Giuliani/Hillary will hand the race to Hillary. Hatred of Hillary for a lot of them will NOT drive them to vote for Giuliani once all his faults and sins of the past come out. He'll come out looking just as unpalatable to Republicans, which either means a third party Republican, or thousands of them staying home. Democrats are jazzed this year. They can't WAIT to vote, whereas Republicans are flatlining as far as national energy goes. Everything depends on who the candidates are, and whether or not that results in third and fourth party candidates with real clout. Also don't forget recent gains in traditional Republican strongholds for Democrats. They're going to have less money, where Democrats will have an unprecedented warchest, and they'll have to defend spots they have counted on for decades.
For every vote Hillary loses or brings out on the Right, she might and just may win and bring out on the Left and maybe even the middle. She's not a guaranteed loser, not by far.
22 Barack Obama 12 Chris Dodd 12 Joe Biden 7 Bill Richardson 7 John Edwards 6 Dennis Kucinich
This is, quite honestly, incomprensible to me. A Hillary nomination would result in red sweeps across the south and midwest.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom: strangely, the polls down there don't bear you out. While I don't think polls are the be all-end all (heh, see below), they're pretty darn good at anticipating sweeps. The prediction markets, a tool with an even better track record, if a shorter one, and using an entirely different mechanism, also predict a very strong showing for Hillary nationwide (though they won't have state by states until the main election nears).
Btw, there will be an interesting test of prediction markets tonight. While polls are showing dead heats, the markets are showing likely Obama and Huckabee wins. Part of the reason Obama is shown as a clear winner is probably analysis of how bidders feel the democratic caucusing process will impact Obama's totals.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Tom: strangely, the polls down there don't bear you out. While I don't think polls are the be all-end all (heh, see below), they're pretty darn good at anticipating sweeps.
I think the key here is turnout, which is something that polls have been notoriously bad at estimating. Republicans who would otherwise not bother to vote will show up to vote against Hillary. There is a level of passionate dislike for her that I don't think has been properly measured.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree with you about the midwest, but Red sweeps in the south? Heavens to Betsy that's news! Bush swept the south in the last two elections, and though the Democratic candidates lost, it was by thin margins, razor thin in Gore's case, where even a SINGLE state, anywhere in the nation, would have won it for him. She'll contest South Carolina, Florida and Virginia heavily. Obama would have a better chance in South Carolina, but she'll do better in Florida.
I disagree about the midwest. She polls pretty much even with the Republicans in Iowa, and far ahead of them in traditional blue states of the last couple elections like Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan and Illinois. She even has a good chance of stealing Ohio away, which I think would seal the election.
Ohio, Florida, Virginia, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and I think maybe Colorado and Nevada are all going to be big battleground states, regardless of the Democratic or Republican nominees, because you also have to look on a state by state basis at the senate, house, and state legislature battles from 06, and looming in 08. Trends point towards Democratic victories in all those states to keep the momentum from their 06 pickups. Those votes are going to give ANY Democrat an advantage.
Besides, if she runs against Giuliani, I think it'll be a landslide victory for her.
I'm curious as to why you think your scenario is more plausible though, or in the case of the south, why you think it even matters.
Edit to add: Two things work against your theory there. 1. Hillary, despite claims I see on Hatrack, will energize a lot of people on the Left to head to the polls who might also traditionally stay home. Like I've said before, Democrats are utterly chomping at the bit to get to the polls this year. I think turnout this year will surpass anything in this decade. Further, people registering as Democrats is skyrocketing (in Iowa for example, for the first time in decades, there are more registered Democrats than Republicans (though both are out numbered by Independents)). 2. Who is the Republican candidate? Placing a vote against Hillary is one thing, but placing it with someone equally bad is another. The Republicans you are talking about will NOT come out in droves to vote against her if they have to vote for Giuliani, and maybe even Romney. You're overvaluing the "not Hillary" crowd and undervaluing the "Giuliani is a ticking time bomb" factor I think.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
While polls have been mildly bad at estimating turnout, I don't believe there has ever been an error by a reputable poll as large as what you are suggesting. Strangely, I'm thinking the pair of differing mechanisms, both with good track records, that still largely agree, are at least in the general ballpark of predicting huge, near-nationwide effects.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
.
