Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[nenjin]

Oh, I found that list thing on CNN's page.

"- Allow candidate-to-candidate questioning " Maybe this is what Nenjin was referring to? Not sure what that means exactly.

Seems pretty self-evident. They wouldn't be allowed to pose questions to each other. "Senator Blah, about that thing you just said..." To keep things from going off script, from people being called out on their statements, from "gotchas." So our Glorious Leaders can Speak To The People without interruption.

[smjjames]

Oh, I found that list thing on CNN's page.

"- Allow candidate-to-candidate questioning " Maybe this is what Nenjin was referring to? Not sure what that means exactly.

Seems pretty self-evident. They wouldn't be allowed to pose questions to each other. "Senator Blah, about that thing you just said..." To keep things from going off script, from people being called out on their statements, from "gotchas." So our Glorious Leaders can Speak To The People without interruption.

I wonder which of the candidates thought of that idea, heh.

Also, wouldn't 'no candidate to candidate questioning' also rule out rebuttals?

Editwhile typing: *collective candidate voices: "NEVERMIND!"* *revolt crumbles* http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/02/media/gop-candidate-revolt/index.html

Apparently Trump (one of those who wrote the thing, or his campagn people anyway), Christie, Kasich, and Fiorina decided not to sign that letter thing to the networks doing the debate. http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/chris-christie-debate-complaints-215432

[smjjames]

I didn't notice this yesterday, but this is interesting, looks like Jindal has managed to break out of the undercard debate. Then again, the most recent two with his name on it don't show him as having any numbers all all (it sort of looks like those two ignored the undercard debate candidates, so, I'd take those with a grain of salt), so, we'll have to see more polls to see whether he really did get a bounce. Probably not in time for the Nov 10th debate since Fox is using the latest polls as of the 4th, tomorrow.

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_IA_110215.pdf

[RedKing]

Well, and I think Fox is using an aggregate of polls, not just the last single poll. And in the aggregate, Jindal's still down with Graham, Santorum and Pataki at the kiddie table. Christie is qualifying with a mere 2% support, so it wouldn't take much of a shift for Christie to fall out and someone else move up, except that reaching 2% would basically be a doubling of their current numbers. Honestly, I think they'd have been better off to include a 5% threshold or something to winnow down the number of candidates. Under that scheme, the number of debate participants would be down to five: Trump, Carson, Cruz, Rubio and Bush.

Last aggregates have Trump narrowly in the lead nationally but still losing in Iowa (though the most recent PPP poll has Trump narrowly ahead in Iowa). For now, Trump has a pretty solid grip on New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida, so even if he loses Iowa to Carson it's no big thing (and would be in keeping with Iowa's history of often picking eventual losers). We have to face the growing reality that Donald Trump may be the GOP nominee for 2016. He still has plenty of potential to fuck it up for himself, but given the electorate and his natural base, I'm not sure there's any kind of gaffe that will cost him significant support, unless he's caught in a three-way tryst with Obama and Hillary while signing a deal buying illegal immigrants from China.


Also, Clinton is back up to a 30-point cushion in national polling, and a whopping 57-point lead in Georgia, which at the moment looks like it'll go red anyways.

[Mephansteras]

Are there any solid polls out there that show the candidates numbers among independents? While that won't sway the nominations much, I expect that a combination of independent voters and overall voter turnout will be the deciding factor in 2016.

[smjjames]

I just thought that Jindal hadn't polled that high before, but I looked back in the RCP and he had the same numbers, also for Iowa, a month ago.

IMO, they really should wait longer, maybe like Friday, to see if theres any bounce or major shift.

What about Rand Paul? He's barely straddling the fence there, and the undercard guys have been polling low for so long that it doesn't look like any of them are getting out of that. Christie would probably dominate those undercard guys anyway.

Are there any solid polls out there that show the candidates numbers among independents? While that won't sway the nominations much, I expect that a combination of independent voters and overall voter turnout will be the deciding factor in 2016.

I haven't seen any which shows the percentages for independents as a group separately from democrats/republicans. Well, there are some that say they include independents, but don't have separate statistics aside from the percentage of independents.

Edit: According to http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-gop-primary Rand Paul is barely qualifying for the main stage and Huckabee is in danger of slipping from the main stage as well.

[RedKing]

Rand Paul is stuck because he's running as a Republican that hates being a Republican. So he's not picking up much support among the base, and he's not picking up much support from Libertarians because he's still a Republican.

And true, I used Christie as the guy who could fall out, but it could equally be Paul, Huckabee or even Kasich or Fiorina. If anything, Fiorina seems to have gotten an "anti-bump" out of the last debate, dropping from 6-7% down to 3%. People are probably getting tired of her spouting obvious bullshit and numbers that she just made up on the spur of the moment.

Really, the GOP race has effectively narrowed to those top 5 I listed, with everyone else just grasping at straws.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

We have to face the growing reality that Donald Trump may be the GOP nominee for 2016.

On the bright side, the unreality of it all will probably help to shatter the illusion of Hillary over Bernie.

He still has plenty of potential to fuck it up for himself, but given the electorate and his natural base, I'm not sure there's any kind of gaffe that will cost him significant support, unless he's caught in a three-way tryst with Obama and Hillary while signing a deal buying illegal immigrants from China.

[desire to watch the world burn intensifies]

[FearfulJesuit]

Rand Paul is stuck because he's running as a Republican that hates being a Republican. So he's not picking up much support among the base, and he's not picking up much support from Libertarians because he's still a Republican.

And true, I used Christie as the guy who could fall out, but it could equally be Paul, Huckabee or even Kasich or Fiorina. If anything, Fiorina seems to have gotten an "anti-bump" out of the last debate, dropping from 6-7% down to 3%. People are probably getting tired of her spouting obvious bullshit and numbers that she just made up on the spur of the moment.

Really, the GOP race has effectively narrowed to those top 5 I listed, with everyone else just grasping at straws.

That's not exactly promising for the GOP- of those five, one (Bush) is probably toast, according to Nate Silver, and of the remaining four I can't see anyone but Rubio winning the general election.

[smjjames]

I agree with you that the race has effectively come down to those five listed, or perhaps a 3% threshold, which still relegates Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, and Rand Paul to the undercard.

I don't know why those undercard guys are still hanging on, probably due to hoping that someone at the top will drop out and one of them move up and wanting to hold on just.... a... little... longer....

Would be nice if we could see their current finances as of right now, but not going to happen.

[Flying Dice]

Time to go out to my old junior high's gym, I suppose.

I agree with you that the race has effectively come down to those five listed, or perhaps a 3% threshold, which still relegates Mike Huckabee, Chris Christie, and Rand Paul to the undercard.

I don't know why those undercard guys are still hanging on, probably due to hoping that someone at the top will drop out and one of them move up and wanting to hold on just.... a... little... longer....

Would be nice if we could see their current finances as of right now, but not going to happen.

I love you for that reference.

[sluissa]

I'm thinking a lot of them are A: pushing it for publicity in their other areas. Either whatever office they hold now or want to move into besides President, or whatever book deal they're working on, etc. or B: Hoping that this will be a repeat of 2012 where the republican side's opinion was all over the place favoring a different candidate seemingly every week until finally settling lukewarmly on Romney.

And it might in fact be doing that. Ben Carson is a bit stronger than a lot of the candidates that topped the polls early on in the 2012 campaign, but he could just end up being another Herman Cain. I'm just waiting for Carson to start quoting anime and get his economic plans from popular video games.

[smjjames]

Rand Paul is stuck because he's running as a Republican that hates being a Republican. So he's not picking up much support among the base, and he's not picking up much support from Libertarians because he's still a Republican.

And true, I used Christie as the guy who could fall out, but it could equally be Paul, Huckabee or even Kasich or Fiorina. If anything, Fiorina seems to have gotten an "anti-bump" out of the last debate, dropping from 6-7% down to 3%. People are probably getting tired of her spouting obvious bullshit and numbers that she just made up on the spur of the moment.

Really, the GOP race has effectively narrowed to those top 5 I listed, with everyone else just grasping at straws.

That's not exactly promising for the GOP- of those five, one (Bush) is probably toast, according to Nate Silver, and of the remaining four I can't see anyone but Rubio winning the general election.

I don't know, you can't really predict that kind of thing. About the only one who seems least likely to win is Carson because of his incoherency when talking policy. Though that doesn't seem to hurt him, heck, I thought he might get a drop in popularity (especially rural Iowa) when he said he wanted to do away with all subsidies. Apparently not.

Trump is a wildcard of wildcards, while there is certainly plenty of material to attack him with, the fact that he has never held political office actually gives him an advantage in some ways when it comes to the general. I suppose with the right team, he COULD win. tl;dr YOU CAN'T PREDICT TRUMP.

Ted Cruz..... He's a good debater I guess? Though tends more to the wacky end of the party.

@sluissa: Except that even though Jindal seems to be having a little bit of luck in Iowa, nearly all the time his numbers are around 1 or 2 percent, sometimes zero. The other undercard guys are even worse off.

[Bauglir]

I don't know, you can't really predict that kind of thing.

you say that but nate silver only needs one or two more of these things before being a confirmed witch

he's pretty good at his job is what i'm saying

and his job is predicting that kind of thing

And, more seriously, his reasoning is sound. If I'd been paying close enough attention I like to think I'd have been less confident in Bush winning the nomination. Silver's basing his expectations on the correct data - which is very rarely polls. At least if I read that right. Trump's odds are still really, really bad, but eh. We'll see, I guess. If he's still competitive in 4 months I'll probably go caucus for him. I kind of want to see that general campaign, and he's almost sure to lose the election - and if he does somehow win, I guess I'll be punished for my hubris with the president I deserve.

EDIT: it just occurred to me that given the rest of your post you probably weren't talking about bush when referring to "that kind of thing"

in which case, i'm a dumb

[smjjames]

I don't know, you can't really predict that kind of thing.

you say that but nate silver only needs one or two more of these things before being a confirmed witch

he's pretty good at his job is what i'm saying

and his job is predicting that kind of thing

And, more seriously, his reasoning is sound. If I'd been paying close enough attention I like to think I'd have been less confident in Bush winning the nomination. Silver's basing his expectations on the correct data - which is very rarely polls. At least if I read that right. Trump's odds are still really, really bad, but eh. We'll see, I guess. If he's still competitive in 4 months I'll probably go caucus for him. I kind of want to see that general campaign, and he's almost sure to lose the election - and if he does somehow win, I guess I'll be punished for my hubris with the president I deserve.

EDIT: it just occurred to me that given the rest of your post you probably weren't talking about bush when referring to "that kind of thing"

in which case, i'm a dumb

Yeah, I was referring to winning the general election, sorry for the confusion. At least right now, so early in the proccess.