2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

hatrickpatrick

oscarBravo wrote: »

I can never resist making graphs from tables.

Is that for Iowa or in general?

hatrickpatrick

20Cent wrote: »

Rape accusers don't have the right to be believed?

Unless the accused is found guilty in court, that would entail allowing somebody's word to kill somebody else's reputation, with no recourse. That's why I (and many others) have always had an issue with this automatic belief thing.

Black Swan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Is that for Iowa or in general?

The percentages used occurred earlier in a table that came from 4 different time period national polls by the same organisation (Quinnipiac).

Black Swan

Not sure why everyone gets so excited about the Republican Iowa caucus scheduled for 1 February 2016, aside from it occurring early in the 2016 presidential nomination cycle? It takes 270 ECs to win. Iowa only has 6 electoral votes for GE 2016, and if we look at the 2008 GOP Iowa caucus it did not remotely come close to whom the Republicans eventually nominated:

Candidate | Votes | %
Huckabee | 40,954 | 34.4
Romney | 30,021 | 25.2
Thompson | 15,960 | 13.4
McCain | 15,536 | 13.0


John McCain at the bottom of the above Iowa list was the Republican 2008 presidential nominee, running with Sarah Palin. 2008 was cited because 2004 and 2012 had incumbent presidents GW Bush and B Obama, making for a different race.

InTheTrees

First Up wrote: »

Hillary rode that horse through the Senate without a finger being laid on her.

If the GOP plans to seriously contest this election they better quickly find a credible candidate with credible policies.

But I suspect that you reflect the attitude of much of the Republican "base", as it becomes increasingly bewildered at why everyone else is going in the opposite direction.

I agree. The republican base live in their own little bubble and steadfastly refuse any information that refutes their beliefs.

They've been obsessed with pinning some scandal on Hillary since the mid-1990's.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/187922/clinton-admired-woman-record-20th-time.aspx

InTheTrees

Black Swan wrote: »

Not sure why everyone gets so excited about the Republican Iowa caucuses scheduled for 1 February 2016, aside from it occurring early in the 2016 presidential nomination cycle?

Because republican supporters are in such disarray and need some direction so perhaps they're hoping for some clarity to emerge after Iowa.

Amerika

InTheTrees wrote: »

I agree. The republican base live in their own little bubble and steadfastly refuse any information that refutes their beliefs.

They've been obsessed with pinning some scandal on Hillary since the mid-1990's.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/187922/clinton-admired-woman-record-20th-time.aspx

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lead the lists. Telephone interviews from 824 adults. Something tells me Gallup got the list of people to call from the DNC.

First Up

Amerika wrote:

Something tells me Gallup got the list of people to call from the DNC.

Probably the same something that tells you Donald Trump will restore America to former glories.

Amerika

First Up wrote: »

Probably the same something that tells you Donald Trump will restore America to former glories.

But I don't think that. Or am I guilty by association because I'm a Republican?

Black Swan

InTheTrees wrote: »

Because republican supporters are in such disarray and need some direction so perhaps they're hoping for some clarity to emerge after Iowa.

Perhaps your assumption has merit, but the 2016 Iowa caucus can be very misleading as we have seen in the most recent 2008 presidential election cycle (without an incumbent). If Iowa had been a bell weather state in 2008, then Huckabee should have clearly gotten the GOP nomination, not John McCain. Demographically Iowa is very rural in population composition, has a tiny 6 ECs out of 270, and has not been classified as a swing state in past presidential elections. It's just early in the 50 state cycle.

Now what happens if Trump wins the 2016 Iowa caucus? What does this mean in perspective to the other 49 states? Will he be another Huckabee, and eventually not get the GOP nomination for president? On the other hand, what if Cruz wins the Iowa caucus? What does that mean? Will Trump pull out, or threaten once again to break his September 2015 pledge not to run independent, like he threatened to do late this year (then flip-flopped again)? Methinks Iowa is over-rated with all the attention it is getting in terms of whom the GOP nominates for 2016 given the 2008 Iowa GOP caucus results.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama lead the lists. Telephone interviews from 824 adults. Something tells me Gallup got the list of people to call from the DNC.

Are you suggesting that the Gallup polling organisation has exhibited a Democrat party bias in terms of its sampling methodologies? If so, can you explain why Gallup tracking polls clearly favoured Republican wins for John McCain in 2008 and Mitt Romney in 2012? Oh, their sampling methods had been subject to criticism, given their heavy emphasis on landline polling, while under-representing mobile polling, along with sampling and data collection problems of call-blocking, cost of mobile minutes, mobile users without landlines, etc., etc., but I seriously doubt that Gallup can be objectively accused of a Democratic party bias with any scholarly rigor or merit. Do you have an objective non-party biased source to cite that supports your allegations against the Gallup polling organisation?

First Up

Amerika wrote:

But I don't think that. Or am I guilty by association because I'm a Republican?

But you think he would make a better president than Hillary?

Manach

More for amusement and presented without technical support:
Chrome Extension Offers Trump-Free Browsing
http://idle.slashdot.org/story/15/12/30/0353237/chrome-extension-offers-trump-free-browsing

As presumable Trump can be replace with Hillary or Saunders, this is perhaps an example of narrowcasting in action.

InTheTrees

Amerika wrote: »

Something tells me Gallup got the list of people to call from the DNC.

Denial is very self destructive.

Who can forget the 2012 Romney/Ryan campaign that continuily bad mouthed the polling organisations and only used their own polls and then lost on a landslide to their surprise.

Brian?

InTheTrees wrote: »

Denial is very self destructive.

Who can forget the 2012 Romney/Ryan campaign that continuily bad mouthed the polling organisations and only used their own polls and then lost on a landslide to their surprise.

I'm still shocked Obama won given the confidence the GOP hand in their internal poling.

I'm also shocked that Wall Street didn't crash when Obama won a 2nd term. If I'd have follow the advice of Amerika and taken my money out is stocks and put it on gold I'd be still crying.

The republican bubble induces a form of psychosis IMO, in 2015 this has led to many believing a loud mouth is qualified to be president. In 2012 it led many to believe a robotic bore could do it.

Manach

However the GOP warnings of a world confronted by renewed national stirrings from Russia were discounted by an Obama team confident in their grasp of international politics. That, apart from some good attempts from Clinton to be more in sync with norms, that did not work out too well.

oscarBravo

Manach wrote: »

However the GOP warnings of a world confronted by renewed national stirrings from Russia were discounted by an Obama team confident in their grasp of international politics. That, apart from some good attempts from Clinton to be more in sync with norms, that did not work out too well.

There's an aphorism about stopped clocks that I suspect fits well here.

KingBrian2

To all Americans on this forum I would like to know any of you guys say Yeah or nah about Donald Trump? Genuine question before we ring in the new year. You guys seem like the best people to ask.

Nodin

Bit of a heave......

"Three of Ben Carson's top advisers, including campaign manager Barry Bennett, quit Thursday following an internal power struggle, a sharp decline in the polls and a week of confusion about who would remain on the former neurosurgeon's presidential campaign team.
"Barry Bennett and I have resigned from the Carson campaign effective immediately," said departed communications director Doug Watts in a statement to The Washington Post. "We respect the candidate and we have enjoyed helping him go from far back in the field to top tier status." Hours later, Carson’s deputy campaign manager Lisa Coen also submitted her resignation."
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/dec/31/ben-carson-top-aides-quit-republican-campaign

...all is not well on the Ark, it would seem.

Black Swan

Nodin wrote: »

"Three of Ben Carson's top advisers, including campaign manager Barry Bennett, quit Thursday following an internal power struggle, a sharp decline in the polls and a week of confusion about who would remain on the former neurosurgeon's presidential campaign team."

It would appear that Carson's days are numbered in terms of his campaign for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.

ECO_Mental

Black Swan wrote: »

Nodin wrote: »

"Three of Ben Carson's top advisers, including campaign manager Barry Bennett, quit Thursday following an internal power struggle, a sharp decline in the polls and a week of confusion about who would remain on the former neurosurgeon's presidential campaign team."

It would appear that Carson's days are numbered in terms of his campaign for the 2016 GOP presidential nomination.

.

GOOD....A homophobic religious nut with serious anger and reality issues. Whose only USP is that he is a surgeon (which he feels he has to mention in EVERY single sentence).

He has been found out.

Manach

ECO_Mental wrote: »

.

GOOD....A homophobic religious nut with serious anger and reality issues. Whose only USP is that he is a surgeon (which he feels he has to mention in EVERY single sentence).

He has been found out.

Got to love the dissonance of the left which slams anything religious which does not directly tie into their progressive narrow world view.

Nodin

Manach wrote: »

Got to love the dissonance of the left which slams anything religious which does not directly tie into their progressive narrow world view.

In fairness I don't think people would label former President Carter a "religious nut" though he is a religious man, very active in his church. He, however, does not have this or anything like it on his wall
http://twitchy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/ben-carson-jesus-portrait-fb.jpg

InTheTrees

Manach wrote: »

Got to love the dissonance of the left which slams anything religious which does not directly tie into their progressive narrow world view.

I think his tax policy which was taken directly from the bible was absolute nonsense. Garbage. And lazy too.

So if my reluctance to accept government policy taken directly from the king james bible makes me a narrow minded progressive then so be it.

:pac:

ECO_Mental

Manach wrote: »

Got to love the dissonance of the left which slams anything religious which does not directly tie into their progressive narrow world view.

Nothing lefty to it really, I would call anybody crazy who has come up with idea that the pyramids were built by joseph to store grain and something to do with aliens also thrown in there. Do you think that's a sane idea?

Overheal

KingBrian2 wrote: »

To all Americans on this forum I would like to know any of you guys say Yeah or nah about Donald Trump? Genuine question before we ring in the new year. You guys seem like the best people to ask.

Nah. No details in his policies that make any sense, all of five issue stances on his own website, "make America great again" by saying. "Wages are too high" etc no indication how he would make Mexico pay for a wall, etc etc

Add to that the Islamapohobia he's continuing to thump. Always attacking other people unapologetically while demanding unilateral apologies in return. The kind of guy that I don't want at a negotiating table somewhere representing me. We need to "rebuild our military" with its 5th generation air superiority, stealth warships, ****ing laser planes, network centric warfare program, spending that outstrips every other country on the planet, I could go on. When challenged on anything he cries bias/offense never engages any specifics and refers you to his crowd sizes or polling numbers - appeal to bandwagon fallacy.

The only thing he gets right, which really gins up his base, is corruption in politics, but there are far better candidates for that. That's before you get into his personal failings.

PopePalpatine

"Wages are too high". How the hell does he have so much support amongst those with just a high school diploma or none at all?!

Manach

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Nothing lefty to it really, I would call anybody crazy who has come up with idea that the pyramids were built by joseph to store grain and something to do with aliens also thrown in there. Do you think that's a sane idea?

I'll leave it to your own expertise in classical history to draw the connections between pyramids and someone's fitness or not for being a candidate. My own classical training would suggest there is some value, however wrong in might be in some details, in knowledge about ancient times and to how a state becomes so divided between partisans it comes into a state of statis.

ECO_Mental

Manach wrote: »

]

I'll leave it to your own expertise in classical history to draw the connections between pyramids and someone's fitness or not for being a candidate. My own classical training would suggest there is some value, however wrong in might be in some details, in knowledge about ancient times and to how a state becomes so divided between partisans it comes into a state of statis.

Ask any 5/6 year old kid who built the pyramids and they would say it was the Egyptians and a tomb for the pharaohs you don't have to be an expert in classical history to know that.... So yes I do think it is VERY relevant for him not being POTUS.

Nodin

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Ask any 5/6 year old kid who built the pyramids and they would say it was the Egyptians and a tomb for the pharaohs you don't have to be an expert in classical history to know that.... So yes I do think it is VERY relevant for him not being POTUS.

I think he refers to the belief - still common in some circles - that a knowledge of the classics (the Greeks and Roman historians and phillosophers in the original Greek and Latin) is of great aid in governance and politics rather than claiming any such knowledge for the good Doctor.