Dirty Laundry for 2016 Candidate Christie

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Are you ever going to directly address the points I made?

I believe I did.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I believe I did.

You didn't. But if you don't want to I will consider the point ceded.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

You didn't. But if you don't want to I will consider the point ceded.

Do with what you want. I believe I addressed both Black Swans' and your comments regarding VP picks in one fell swoop.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Do with what you want. I believe I addressed both Black Swans' and your comments regarding VP picks in one fell swoop.

You didn't really.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

I believe I addressed both Black Swans' and your comments regarding VP picks in one fell swoop.

If Christie were to run as a moderate and be selected in the Republican primary as their candidate, it would not make any difference who his VP running mate was in real terms of the outcome during the 2016 presidential election; e.g., Sarah Palin, Howard Stern, etc.?

Amerika wrote: »

I’ve seen studies that indicate the net effect of a vice presidential candidate is generally less than 1% in terms of getting voters to cross party lines.

It would be interesting to review such studies (i.e., "studies," not opinion pieces or news articles) in terms of how they support your position here. Such studies should include an analysis of the McCain-Palin 2008 campaign and loss to be relevant to our discussion in this thread, given that both Brian? and I mentioned Palin as a case in point. You also said studies, suggesting that there were several in agreement providing a consensus. Can you cite these studies please that include McCain-Palin?

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

Notice Chris Christie’s alleged attempts to extort Hoboken Mayor Dawn Zimmer has dropped off the media radar? Why? Well CNN reported that Zimmer denied any Sandy funds were withheld because of political shenanigans just one week prior to her bombshell on MSNBC. Belmar, NJ Mayor Matt Doherty (D), who was present for one of the supposed extortion encounters, stated for the record that Zimmer’s account does not coincide with his. And from a review of NJ grant data, Hoboken has received the same level of aid as 39 other communities of similar size. And suddenly Dawn Zimmer is no longer discussing her allegations... Hmmmm!

I guess if Christie’s administration does use extortion practices, they’re really really really bad at it. But it seems the truth doesn’t really matter, as the Democrat's mission to discredit Christie in the lead up to the 2016 election is going ahead quiet swimmingly.

Actually, no, it hasn't 'dropped off the media radar'.

What an odd world one must live in to have to constantly make things up out of thin air.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/30/nyregion/powerful-allies-pushed-a-project-in-new-jersey.html?hp&_r=0

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

If Christie were to run as a moderate and be selected in the Republican primary as their candidate, it would not make any difference who his VP running mate was in real terms of the outcome during the 2016 presidential election; e.g., Sarah Palin, Howard Stern, etc.?

Sarah Palin was a rising star at the time and one that appealed to conservatives. Now I think Howard Stern might play a heavy hand in voter opinion, but do you really honestly think a presidential candidate from one of the two major parties would pick the likes of Howard Stern?

It would be interesting to review such studies (i.e., "studies," not opinion pieces or news articles) in terms of how they support your position here. Such studies should include an analysis of the McCain-Palin 2008 campaign and loss to be relevant to our discussion in this thread, given that both Brian? and I mentioned Palin as a case in point. You also said studies, suggesting that there were several in agreement providing a consensus. Can you cite these studies please that include McCain-Palin?

Here's one to start that you might be interested in (not an opinion piece). Doesn't it origniate from your backyard, so to speak?
http://www.mwpweb.eu/1/76/resources/publication_522_1.pdf
(edit: And why would they "need" to include McCain-Palin... you don't get to make the rules.)

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

(edit: And why would they "need" to include McCain-Palin... you don't get to make the rules.)

Both Brian? and I noted the 2008 McCain-Palin presidential campaign as a specific and important case in point. Consequently it becomes problematic for you to refer to studies that do not include 2008 in your attempt to refute discussion points that pertained to 2008.

The one Grofman and Kline study (not "studies") you cited that included the McCain-Palin 2008 campaign was appreciated.

Although Grofman and Kline suggested that the Vice Presidential effects were significant but small, regarding the 2008 election they did conclude that "the net impact of vice presidential comparisons by voters in 2008 helped the Democrats," suggesting to some extent that the Palin vs Biden comparison helped the Democrats win in 2008.

Caution should be exercised when reviewing this study given that the population parameters were limited to "only voters who reported voting for one of the major-party candidates for president in the postelection survey were considered;" i.e., exclusion of voters that may have stayed at home, or voters that did vote for other offices, but not for president/VP (disliking the choices, etc.); and the limitations associated with a "postelection survey" sampling, errors, estimates, etc., as opposed to actual voter election decisions and results.

Furthermore, Grofman and Kline admit:

...cautious in interpreting our overall findings... our findings may understate the impact of vice presidential selection on choice because voters modify their views of the president based on vice presidential selection, and thus the data we report may be “contaminated” by unmeasured effects of vice presidential choice.

In other words, the Vice Presidential running mate choice may in fact influence the election outcomes to a greater extent than measured in this Grofman and Kline study; i.e., Palin may have made a difference that contributed to the Obama win, and if the 2008 model were to be repeated by Christie in 2016 (or a different GOP presidential candidate), a Palin-like polarizing (non-moderate) running mate may help the Democrats win again.

Brian?

Black Swan wrote: »

Both Brian? and I noted the 2008 McCain-Palin presidential campaign as a specific and important case in point. Consequently it becomes problematic for you to refer to studies that do not include 2008 in your attempt to refute discussion points that pertained to 2008.

The one Grofman and Kline study (not "studies") you cited that included the McCain-Palin 2008 campaign was appreciated.

Although Grofman and Kline suggested that the Vice Presidential effects were significant but small, regarding the 2008 election they did conclude that "the net impact of vice presidential comparisons by voters in 2008 helped the Democrats," suggesting to some extent that the Palin vs Biden comparison helped the Democrats win in 2008.

Caution should be exercised when reviewing this study given that the population parameters were limited to "only voters who reported voting for one of the major-party candidates for president in the postelection survey were considered;" i.e., exclusion of voters that may have stayed at home, or voters that did vote for other offices, but not for president/VP (disliking the choices, etc.); and the limitations associated with a "postelection survey" sampling, errors, estimates, etc., as opposed to actual voter election decisions and results.

Furthermore, Grofman and Kline admit:

In other words, the Vice Presidential running mate choice may in fact influence the election outcomes to a greater extent than measured in this Grofman and Kline study; i.e., Palin may have made a difference that contributed to the Obama win, and if the 2008 model were to be repeated by Christie in 2016 (or a different GOP presidential candidate), a Palin-like polarizing (non-moderate) running mate may help the Democrats win again.

A far better response than anything I could craft. So I'll leave it there.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Both Brian? and I noted the 2008 McCain-Palin presidential campaign as a specific and important case in point. Consequently it becomes problematic for you to refer to studies that do not include 2008 in your attempt to refute discussion points that pertained to 2008.

The one Grofman and Kline study (not "studies") you cited that included the McCain-Palin 2008 campaign was appreciated.

Although Grofman and Kline suggested that the Vice Presidential effects were significant but small, regarding the 2008 election they did conclude that "the net impact of vice presidential comparisons by voters in 2008 helped the Democrats," suggesting to some extent that the Palin vs Biden comparison helped the Democrats win in 2008.

Caution should be exercised when reviewing this study given that the population parameters were limited to "only voters who reported voting for one of the major-party candidates for president in the postelection survey were considered;" i.e., exclusion of voters that may have stayed at home, or voters that did vote for other offices, but not for president/VP (disliking the choices, etc.); and the limitations associated with a "postelection survey" sampling, errors, estimates, etc., as opposed to actual voter election decisions and results.

Furthermore, Grofman and Kline admit:

In other words, the Vice Presidential running mate choice may in fact influence the election outcomes to a greater extent than measured in this Grofman and Kline study; i.e., Palin may have made a difference that contributed to the Obama win, and if the 2008 model were to be repeated by Christie in 2016 (or a different GOP presidential candidate), a Palin-like polarizing (non-moderate) running mate may help the Democrats win again.

I didn’t list another one that I read at one time from the New York Times due to your requirement of it being a "study," although it did list empirical information from a study. Although more directly targeting on the VP effect on the home-state effect, it lead me to conclude that a VP choice had minimal effect on an election - so shoot me. Not a study - but you might give it a perusal purely for entertainment purposes. http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/23/the-overrated-vice-presidential-home-state-effect/?_php=true&_type=blogs&_r=0 I also didn’t list the studies of the effect of the Vice Presidental selections of Adkison (1982), Wattenberg (1995) or Romero (2001) because I honestly didn’t read them, but feel free to investigate them if you so wish (caution: some are pre-"devil woman," and might not interest you )
　
And you beg caution because of the exclusion of voters that may have stayed at home, or voters that did vote for other offices but not for president/VP, sampling errors, etc. Isn’t it a bit disingenuous to use these factors to insinuate that the data is suspect regarding their assertion of the negligible effect of the VP selection? What numbers do you think would cause a true skewing of the data? I don’t believe any of those factors, alone or taken together as a whole, are enough to cause one to scream "Caution the Study is Suspect." And I think one could make an even stronger case that some of those factors might have been more influenced because of things like the weather conditions on voting day, Mitt Romney’s religion or ties to Wall Street, Barack Obama socialistic tendencies or the color of his skin, people don't give a rat's ass of a care about the national election and are more concerned with local politics... or if they were showing a rerun marathon of Gilligan’s Island on television -- rather than the VP selection. And when talking about sampling errors as a generalization, we could use that excuse to discredit just about any survey I guess (if we don’t like the outcome that is).

And what is it with the continual Palin hatred?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

And what is it with the continual Palin hatred?

Who said they hates her? It would be very easy to hate here. She's a fundamentalist Christian, she's anti intellectual and she has no problem telling outright lies to further her own agenda. I'm fairly sure as an Atheist and a Socialist she'd hate me if we ever met.

However I don't hate her and I doubt Black Swan hates her.

She did enormous damage to the McCain campaign. That's the debate.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

And what is it with the continual Palin hatred?

Because she's still spewing the same garbled uneducated rubbish.

Mjollnir

Amerika wrote: »

And what is it with the continual Palin hatred?

What is it with feigning ignorance, after all this time, as to why people hold Palin in contempt?

InTheTrees

Mjollnir wrote: »

What is it with feigning ignorance, after all this time, as to why people hold Palin in contempt?

Is it any wonder that in a country of low education standards the red states have the lowest?

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

Is it any wonder that in a country of low education standards the red states have the lowest?

Hmmm... Yet in a study by the Roper Center, provided by Brian? in another topic, those with the lowest level of education (only some High School education) voted overwhelmingly in 2012 for Obama over Romney by a margin of 64% to 35%. Go figure! :eek:

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm... Yet in a study by the Roper Center, provided by Brian? in another topic, those with the lowest level of education (only some High School education) voted overwhelmingly in 2012 for Obama over Romney by a margin of 64% to 35%. Go figure! :eek:

I conclusively rebutted that point. It's within the margin of error. No wonder you don't want to answer my posts you actually ignore anything you disagree with.

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

I conclusively rebutted that point. It's within the margin of error. No wonder you don't want to answer my posts you actually ignore anything you disagree with.

I honestly don’t recall you conclusively giving a rebuttal that such a vast difference was within the margin of error of how the undereducated voted. What would the margin of error be... something like 40%? Can you provide your reasoning here?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

I honestly don’t recall you conclusively giving a rebuttal that such a vast difference was within the margin of error of how the undereducated voted. What would the margin of error be... something like 40%? Can you provide your reasoning here?

You know what? I couldn't be bothered.

It's a waste of time if I have to constantly repeat myself. You win, well done. I give up.

Memnoch

Brian? wrote: »

You know what? I couldn't be bothered.

It's a waste of time if I have to constantly repeat myself. You win, well done. I give up.

Sometimes it is not possible to have a reasonable discussion. Some people will insist that 2 + 2 = 5 and no matter what you say you will never convince them otherwise.

How do you think someone like Sarah Palin can stand for vice president of the USA on a ticket that got 40%+ of the vote?

Brian?

Here's what I said.

Also the the "some high school" demographic is 3% of the electorate, so whatever way the poll turned out is statistically in the margin for error i.e. no conclusion can be drawn from it.

I'd also say that education can be dismissed as a factor with the "some high school" voters because they are more likely to be minorities. Minorities went in huge numbers for Obama. This is actually opinion though, not fact, so I won't try to present it as fact.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

And you beg caution because of the exclusion of voters that may have stayed at home, or voters that did vote for other offices but not for president/VP, sampling errors, etc. Isn’t it a bit disingenuous to use these factors to insinuate that the data is suspect regarding their assertion of the negligible effect of the VP selection?

Exercising "caution" is called science. When we conduct research, analyze results, and draw conclusions from "studies," or review the researches of others, we proceed with "caution," often cautioning the reader about the limitations of the study when we present our data, analytic methods, findings, interpretations, and published results. To do otherwise would be "disingenuous," unlike the spin you are attempting to make here to discredit what is common to the scientific approach.

What I find interesting in your reply to my post that exhibited "caution," is that you completely ignored the "cautions" made by the authors of the one study you cited by Grofman and Kline. Where they too being "disingenuous" by your standards when they stated:

...cautious in interpreting our overall findings... our findings may understate the impact of vice presidential selection on choice because voters modify their views of the president based on vice presidential selection, and thus the data we report may be “contaminated” by unmeasured effects of vice presidential choice.

Then again, their "cautions" did not suggest support for the point you were attempting to make earlier, so perhaps that suggests why you ignored their "cautions" in the one study you cited?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

Here's what I said.

Also the the "some high school" demographic is 3% of the electorate, so whatever way the poll turned out is statistically in the margin for error i.e. no conclusion can be drawn from it.

I'd also say that education can be dismissed as a factor with the "some high school" voters because they are more likely to be minorities. Minorities went in huge numbers for Obama. This is actually opinion though, not fact, so I won't try to present it as fact.

Thank you. I do remember that, but I find it far from being a conclusive argument. So help me to understand... That if the "some high school" demographic is 3% of the electorate, and I’m assuming the margin of error might also be 3% (you didn’t mention a number) of the entire sampling population, that the entire margin of error has a high probably of being entirely in the "some high school" demographic, and therefore conclusive evidence that the there can be no conclusion of the data presented?

And although you might very well be correct that the "some high school" voters are more likely to be minorities, it doesn’t negate the fact that the uneducated voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2012, correct (assuming the data to be correct that is)?

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

Thank you. I do remember that, but I find it far from being a conclusive argument. So help me to understand... That if the "some high school" demographic is 3% of the electorate, and I’m assuming the margin of error might also be 3% (you didn’t mention a number) of the entire sampling population, that the entire margin of error has a high probably of being entirely in the "some high school" demographic, and therefore conclusive evidence that the there can be no conclusion of the data presented?

And although you might very well be correct that the "some high school" voters are more likely to be minorities, it doesn’t negate the fact that the uneducated voted overwhelmingly for Obama in 2012, correct?

There is no proof that the "some high school " group voted overwhelmingly for Obama. The sample is too small to prove anything conclusive.

It's that simple. The is no conclusion either way.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Exercising "caution" is called science. When we conduct research, analyze results, and draw conclusions from "studies," or review the researches of others, we proceed with "caution," often cautioning the reader about the limitations of the study when we present our data, analytic methods, findings, interpretations, and published results. To do otherwise would be "disingenuous," unlike the spin you are attempting to make here to discredit what is common to the scientific approach.

What I find interesting in your reply to my post that exhibited "caution," is that you completely ignored the "cautions" made by the authors of the one study you cited by Grofman and Kline. Where they too being "disingenuous" by your standards when they stated:



Then again, their "cautions" did not suggest support for the point you were attempting to make earlier, so perhaps that suggests why you ignored their "cautions" in the one study you cited?

Are you saying that the since the authors state: ". cautious in interpreting our overall findings... our findings may understate the impact of vice presidential selection on choice because voters modify their views of the president based on vice presidential selection, and thus the data we report may be "contaminated" by unmeasured effects of vice presidential choice.," you believe it is their contention that their conclusion of the study is suspect or invalid? If that’s the case, one would have to wonder why did they even bother? Why do any study whatsoever if any level of caution negates any of the findings?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

There is no proof that the "some high school " group voted overwhelmingly for Obama. The sample is too small to prove anything conclusive.

It's that simple. The is no conclusion either way.

Okay I think I better understand what you're trying to say now. I just don't buy it.

Mjollnir

Oopsie.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/chris-christie-bridge-traffic-jam-emails#wildstein2

UPDATE 12, Friday, Jan. 31, 3:52 p.m. EST: The New York Times reports that Wildstein has evidence that Christie knew of the lane closures as they were happening, which the governor has consistently denied. Specifically, a letter released by Wildstein's attorney Friday, says Wildstein has evidence "tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures, during the period when the lanes were closed, contrary to what the governor stated publicly in a two-hour press conference" three weeks ago. Read the letter here.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Are you saying that the since the authors state: ". cautious in interpreting our overall findings... our findings may understate the impact of vice presidential selection on choice because voters modify their views of the president based on vice presidential selection, and thus the data we report may be "contaminated" by unmeasured effects of vice presidential choice." So you believe it is their contention that their conclusion of the study is suspect? If that’s the case, one would have to wonder why did they even bother? Why do any study whatsoever if any level of caution negates any of the findings?

It's called science. Science proceeds with caution; i.e., the scientific method. You will often find cautions and/or limitations stated in grants, research proposals, scholarly presentations, and peer-reviewed publications. Exercising caution does not negate the value that is often produced by a scientific approach towards theory, method, and practical applications. By noting cautions, the reader and decision maker are in a better position to make an informed choice; e.g., when conducting a cost-benefits analysis, cautions can be factored-in when assessing risk.

The study cautions noted by Grofman and Kline in the article you cited were important to the informed consumer of research literature (e.g, informed voter, etc.), as well as to informed political campaign decision makers. If anything, it suggests that more research is needed before we go off and start spouting their conclusions as facts, when in reality they may be useful suggestions toward a greater understanding of the very complex big picture of elections.

The self-proclaimed cautions of Grofman and Kline did cause me to pause, making me wonder if their study was sufficiently "contaminated" to toss it out as being too flawed, or if their measurements "understate(d)" the explained variances associated with the effects of Vice President running mate selection on campaign outcomes, and still having some value.

InTheTrees

Mjollnir wrote: »

Oopsie.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/chris-christie-bridge-traffic-jam-emails#wildstein2

UPDATE 12, Friday, Jan. 31, 3:52 p.m. EST: The New York Times reports that Wildstein has evidence that Christie knew of the lane closures as they were happening, which the governor has consistently denied. Specifically, a letter released by Wildstein's attorney Friday, says Wildstein has evidence "tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures, during the period when the lanes were closed, contrary to what the governor stated publicly in a two-hour press conference" three weeks ago. Read the letter here.

This really could be the end for Christie. WIldstein was one of the people who we assumed was so close to Christie (even though christie said otherwise!) that he would remain loyal. But this shows cracks are appearing.

Black Swan

Christie continues to successfully fund raise for the Republican Governors Association, apparently reaching record numbers for January.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Christie continues to successfully fund raise for the Republican Governors Association, apparently reaching record numbers for January.

In My Opinion:
Becasue it's no big deal... as people have come to realize the "Christie Scandal" is a non-issue for the most part. After the release of thousands of emails, we have learned Christie had no knowledge of his staff’s shenanigans (Damn!). But what has become more interesting is the media’s "Christie Crucifying Crusade," led by CNN and MSNBC, and is far more entertaining and representative of what is wrong with journalism today. Christie has dropped less than 10% in approval ratings since the media fixation began to bring the big guy down. It seems they can’t stand the fact that he maintains a approval rating around 60%, outstanding for a governor, while the approval ratings for journalists is less than 30% (Oh The Humanity!). Someone should tell the medial that perhaps it’s time to move on to more important issues. We do have a presidential election coming up in 2016 and there are far more interesting things to concentrate on from the prospective candidates you know, like why would someone keep a "hit list" on enemies from a failed past campaign maybe.