Open Side Menu Go to the Top
Register
Who Will Be the 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee? Who Will Be the 2012 Republican Presidential Nominee?

10-11-2011 , 12:27 AM
I am hopeful that the R's are making electability a primary consideration and Perry's fall is a result. Romney is so much harder for Obama to attack imo.
10-11-2011 , 12:27 AM
guys cain is going nowhere. ive posted it like 10 times, but he said he would not hire a muslim, then said he'd talk to each individual one to find out whether or not they were one of the bad ones. even for republicans that's ******ed.
10-11-2011 , 02:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Turn Prophet

I can honestly say I have no idea who the nominee will be at this point. The voters seem fickle, and this is one cluster **** of a field. Whoever it is, I don't think they have a great shot at beating Obama with the way the electoral map shapes up.
TP,

If Obama's Favorable rating is close to the 42% it sits at today, the Swinginglory/IKE ticket wins by double digits.
10-11-2011 , 02:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinginglory
TP,

If Obama's Favorable rating is close to the 42% it sits at today, the Swinginglory/IKE ticket wins by double digits.
This sounds plausible, except for the case when the GOP nominee is sitting at a 40% favorability rating.
10-11-2011 , 02:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
guys cain is going nowhere. ive posted it like 10 times, but he said he would not hire a muslim, then said he'd talk to each individual one to find out whether or not they were one of the bad ones. even for republicans that's ******ed.
You realize outside of Ann Arbor and Madison, some permutation of that in-artful statement resonates with an awful lot of people.
10-11-2011 , 02:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
This sounds plausible, except for the case when the GOP nominee is sitting at a 40% favorability rating.
Not just plausible.... it is a fact with presidential incumbents. The election is a thumbs up or thumbs down affair.
10-11-2011 , 02:24 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Riverman
guys cain is going nowhere. ive posted it like 10 times, but he said he would not hire a muslim, then said he'd talk to each individual one to find out whether or not they were one of the bad ones. even for republicans that's ******ed.
I could print a scroll of dumb things Biden said and use it as toilet paper for a month! Doesn't mean he goes nowhere. (unless you count the vice-presidency as nowhere)
10-11-2011 , 02:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinginglory
Not just plausible.... it is a fact with presidential incumbents. The election is a thumbs up or thumbs down affair.
C'mon man. I know you like cheerleading, but your "fact" is a plausible assertion based on a painfully small sample size that doesn't stand up to any sort of statistical rigor.
10-11-2011 , 03:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinginglory
Not just plausible.... it is a fact with presidential incumbents. The election is a thumbs up or thumbs down affair.
Well, all those people who spend their lives pouring over troves of data mined from voters over the years can officially quit and look for new jobs. Swinginglory has condensed our entire election process down to a Siskel and Ebert-esque analogy.
10-11-2011 , 05:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trolly McTrollson
The VP will not one of the losing candidates, that's a lock. It will be Daniels or some obscure guy no one's ever heard of.
Do you guys think that going from a winner-take-all system to representative delegates in some states changes things at the convention?
Could a candidate get the biggest number of delegates at the convention and still lack a majority, forcing him to broker that majority by giving the VP to a guy who offers him enough delegates? Or will this just get taken care of by earlier endorsements by people dropping out of the race.

Serious question. I am obviously not that familiar with the american election system.
10-11-2011 , 05:31 AM
Let's not forget the magic underwear.
10-11-2011 , 07:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinginglory
You realize outside of Ann Arbor and Madison, some permutation of that in-artful statement resonates with an awful lot of people.
I don't think straight-up religious bigotry is really a winning strategy for a candidate. Esp not if Romney's the nominee.
10-11-2011 , 07:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GermanGuy
Do you guys think that going from a winner-take-all system to representative delegates in some states changes things at the convention?
Could a candidate get the biggest number of delegates at the convention and still lack a majority, forcing him to broker that majority by giving the VP to a guy who offers him enough delegates? Or will this just get taken care of by earlier endorsements by people dropping out of the race.

Serious question. I am obviously not that familiar with the american election system.
It will never get to another brokered convention. Look at 08 for the Dems, if any convention would be brokered it would be that one, and it wasn't. It will be done by Super Tuesday.
10-11-2011 , 08:22 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrWookie
C'mon man. I know you like cheerleading, but your "fact" is a plausible assertion based on a painfully small sample size that doesn't stand up to any sort of statistical rigor.
So you refute the writings of your boy Mr. Silver of the 538 blog as making assertions based on a painfully small sample size that doesn't stand up to rigorous analysis?

You promise never to quote his inept and biased work ever again?

Shall I remind you of this:

http://www.538host.com/appre1.png

And this:

http://www.538host.com/appre4.png

For someone who has many times claimed to be an 'empiricist', you seem not to like empirical evidence from one of your favorite blogs when it argues a point in opposition to your firmly held beliefs.

As to 'cheerleading' every single person on this board has his own biases, that goes without saying. You too, believe it or not. It sometimes is hard to swallow when the empirical evidence on the ground duly collected goes against our tightly held belief system.
10-11-2011 , 09:05 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by swinginglory
So you refute the writings of your boy Mr. Silver of the 538 blog as making assertions based on a painfully small sample size that doesn't stand up to rigorous analysis?

You promise never to quote his inept and biased work ever again?

Shall I remind you of this:

http://www.538host.com/appre1.png

And this:

http://www.538host.com/appre4.png

For someone who has many times claimed to be an 'empiricist', you seem not to like empirical evidence from one of your favorite blogs when it argues a point in opposition to your firmly held beliefs.

As to 'cheerleading' every single person on this board has his own biases, that goes without saying. You too, believe it or not. It sometimes is hard to swallow when the empirical evidence on the ground duly collected goes against our tightly held belief system.
You do realise that a) the first chart suggests a strong but not perfect correlation between approval rating and re-election margin (hence there are other factors other than "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" and b) the second chart implies that even with a ~40% approval rating, the incumbent still has a non-negligible chance of winning re-election.

If you actually read the article's text:

Quote:
At first glance, the relationship seems nearly perfect: every incumbent with an approval rating of 49 percent or higher won re-election, while every candidate with a rating of 48 percent or lower lost.

In practice, things probably don’t work quite that crisply. For example, Harry Truman, whom we estimate had a 50 percent approval rating on Election Day 1948, won by 4.5 points, and 114 electoral votes, over Thomas E. Dewey, which suggests that he had some margin to spare. And candidate quality clearly makes a difference. Although Robert Dole is sometimes considered a weak Republican nominee, Bill Clinton beat him in 1996 by just 8.5 points, despite Mr. Clinton’s 55 percent approval rating. By contrast, in 1972, Richard Nixon, with an approval rating only a couple of points higher (57 percent), trounced a very weak Democratic nominee, George McGovern, by more than 23 points.
10-11-2011 , 09:33 AM
I think Nate has repeatedly remarked that much of the statistical analysis about presidential elections is questionable due to the small sample sizes involved.

In a vacuum, Obama's numbers are terrible and would appear to make everything else basically irrelevant. But we don't live in a vacuum. Obama is arguably the most popular politician with any kind of decent, national name-recognition (at least anyone who is running for president). For anyone in that category also has pretty bad numbers. And certainly the approval rating of the GOP generally is near historic lows.

It's easy to say that elections are just referendums on the incumbents. But I don't know that it's true. The ballot box doesn't say "incumbent" or "non-incumbent." Actual names are presented and imo, voters do take those names into account.
10-11-2011 , 10:05 AM
Nate is also incredibly partisan (he is a hardcore Democrat), and if you don't take that into account when reading his "punditry", you're doing yourself a disservice.
10-11-2011 , 10:23 AM
Nate is a partisan, but he offers both partisan and non-partisan analysis.

When it comes to discussing the numbers alone, though, he seems pretty above reproach.
10-11-2011 , 10:57 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wynton
Why?

It'll never happen anyway.
white guilt ldo. seems like Cain might bring in some tea party types that might have stayed home. I dunno...sometimes I feel like vp nom doesn't really matter much at all
10-11-2011 , 12:29 PM
Looking forward to some laughter-inducing banter at tonight's debate.
10-11-2011 , 12:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nichlemn
You do realise that a) the first chart suggests a strong but not perfect correlation between approval rating and re-election margin (hence there are other factors other than "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" and b) the second chart implies that even with a ~40% approval rating, the incumbent still has a non-negligible chance of winning re-election.

If you actually read the article's text:
Hi Nich,

Don't blame the messenger. First I didn't say anything about predicting election margin. There seems to be a perfect 12 for 12 correlation (for some reason FDR's1944 election isn't in the data although he had a 70% rating in 1944) with an incumbent's favorables and his re-election prospects. I'm not a statistician but I don't see how 12 for 12 isn't significant.

Cliffs: NO incumbent below 49% has ever won and no incumbent above 50% has ever lost. Could an incumbent win with a 48-47% approval, yeah probably, but the farther he drops below 50% the more difficult his task becomes.

And , of course, it goes without saying that Nate is a big lib, so he puts the best face on horrid data for his team. Totally standard, but he has the intellectual chops to present the data, which doesn't lie.
10-11-2011 , 12:54 PM
FWIW my trainer, who is basically a racist* - thinks Cain is awesome. He really likes the idea that "that'll show those blacks and Jesse Jackson and everyone that it's not about black vs. white any more". Basically we got our own black guy now, so take that. Maybe just maybe this Cain thing has legs.

*but the blue collar kind, which I consider to be much less dangerous than the country club kind
10-11-2011 , 12:57 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by NameOnTheCake
white guilt ldo. seems like Cain might bring in some tea party types that might have stayed home. I dunno...sometimes I feel like vp nom doesn't really matter much at all
The TEA party types won't be excited by Romney but as I understand the demographic (older, affluent) they don't miss elections of any type let alone a Presidential election.
Wynton has brought up a good point, that Obama's appeal is greater than his approval numbers. The R's can't just run anybody and expect to win. I am hopeful that the social conservatives in the party recognize this and support Romney rather than Perry/Cain/Paul.
10-11-2011 , 01:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by suzzer99
FWIW my trainer, who is basically a racist* - thinks Cain is awesome. He really likes the idea that "that'll show those blacks and Jesse Jackson and everyone that it's not about black vs. white any more". Basically we got our own black guy now so take that. Maybe just maybe this Cain thing has legs.

*but the blue collar kind, which I consider to be much less dangerous than the country club kind
God love ya libs, painting a black man that does well as a R as an indication of racism.
10-11-2011 , 01:08 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlelou
The TEA party types won't be excited by Romney but as I understand the demographic (older, affluent) they don't miss elections of any type let alone a Presidential election.
Wynton has brought up a good point, that Obama's appeal is greater than his approval numbers. The R's can't just run anybody and expect to win. I am hopeful that the social conservatives in the party recognize this and support Romney rather than Perry/Cain/Paul.
Oh, so you want another McCain? Look how that turned out. (This is the argument going on on the uber-conservative Chiefs forum.)

Also one of their members just got his first Breitbart piece published. He's soooo excited. Of course it's bashing the OWS protesters for that one bogus list of demands that foxnews and mises ran with 2 weeks ago. http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showt...40#post7985640

Last edited by suzzer99; 10-11-2011 at 01:13 PM.

      
m