• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Forget debate: Two simple reasons a Republican will likely win in 2016

TubbaBlubba said:
I do wonder what American politics would have become like if Great Lea- err, Roosevelt hadn't died.
Click to expand...

I bet nobody would be questioning whether Hillary or Bernie is too old to be President given that FDR would be 133 years old and own the record for human longevity, despite having been in poor health when he was much younger.
 
Sabrina said:
I would highly recommend you ditch whomever created that "model" and trust Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.
Click to expand...

First off, I don't ascribe to this! I merely posted it to see opinions. I have known Nate for a long time! "Lies, Damned Lies" was my favorite column for years! I was integral in getting him to speak at SXSW in 2009! Thank you, though!
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
I don't think it's too early to call Democrat vs Clown. Is it at all possible that the Republicans will put forward a credible, non Tea Party endorsed candidate? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

Look on the bright side, most of the teabaggers will be dead and flushed down a toilet within 20 years!!!!!!!
 
aleCcowaN said:
So, it looks like being a clown is not an impediment to gain power and even be re-elected.

Viva El Trump! He is the most representative of all candidates. Truly American™
Click to expand...

The US is certainly not unique in that regard.
 
lionking said:
I don't think it's too early to call Democrat vs Clown. Is it at all possible that the Republicans will put forward a credible, non Tea Party endorsed candidate? I don't think so.
Click to expand...

I've said elsewhere that this election will be a Democratic landslide. The Republicans are so riven with bickering and infighting that they'll do Hillary's dirty work for her just trying to get the nomination, plus the first wave of Tea Party senators will be defending their seats and it's not looking good for several of them. The Republicans will likely lose the Senate and will have a significantly reduced majority in the House, if they retain control.
 
sunmaster14 said:
The US is certainly not unique in that regard.
Click to expand...

True. Sadly. So true that we are 9 days away of presidential elections and any of the candidates, including the Trotskyist one, is better than our current two-period viciously egomaniac president.

My own model tells me Clinton will beat Trump 56 to 44%. It's sad because I think Trump is the right choice -no pun planned-. Because if it's not Trump, who is gonna be? Jeb Bush? A greener chia pet?
 
aleCcowaN said:
True. Sadly. So true that we are 9 days away of presidential elections and any of the candidates, including the Trotskyist one, is better than our current two-period viciously egomaniac president.

My own model tells me Clinton will beat Trump 56 to 44%. It's sad because I think Trump is the right choice -no pun planned-. Because if it's not Trump, who is gonna be? Jeb Bush? A greener chia pet?
Click to expand...

Trump is a clown, almost by definition. I would think he was brilliant if I thought his strategy was pre-planned, but I don't. He might not be a bad President, but just about the only idea he has that makes any sense at all is the idea to build a wall on the Southern border (although not to try to deport 11 million people).

Trump is probably the favorite to be the nominee, but he is still well below 50% probability in my opinion. Marco Rubio probably has the best chance besides Trump. At the moment, he's my choice.
 
sunmaster14 said:
Trump is probably the favorite to be the nominee, but he is still well below 50% probability in my opinion. Marco Rubio probably has the best chance besides Trump. At the moment, he's my choice.
Click to expand...

I'm trying to imagine a presidential debate between Clinton and baby-face Blond, I mean, Rubio. It would look like any moment she'd be going to pull him over her lap and start to spank him. Let's face people don't vote for ideas but because of perceptions.
 
sunmaster14 said:
In general, though, of course the data is not terribly meaningful. There's no question that incumbent parties are at a disadvantage, despite the fact that incumbent Presidents are at an advantage. It's not going to make the difference between a good candidate and a bad candidate though.
Click to expand...

No question? I question it. Is that a seat of the pants judgment or something?


Hillary is not a good candidate, but the Democrats will be united behind her, and that's probably why she has the advantage in the betting. I think the bettors are overlooking her troubles with the email scandal, however. That's really serious stuff, and the Democrats could easily find themselves with a nominee under the cloud of an indictment.
Click to expand...

I think you're probably a over-hopeful about the potential email scandal. Not that I think the handicappers are the end-all and be-all, but at least their whole business depends on statistical analysis, and they're not vesting any emotion into it.
 
Brainster said:
Nixon was a clown, Reagan was a clown, Bush II was a clown.

You folks really have to get over the idea that everybody's got the same worldview as you. Otherwise half the time you will be amazed by what happens.
Click to expand...

Bernie Sanders is closer to Nixon than any of the GOP crowd. Reagan would now be a RINO and, yeah, W was a bit of a clown. Aw, but an affable one, not the scary type, like Nixon.

Gawdzilla Sama said:
And let's not forget who ruled the US from 1933 to 1945.
Click to expand...

Hitler?
 
hgc said:
No question? I question it. Is that a seat of the pants judgment or something?
Click to expand...

It's a rhetorical flourish, not really an expression of 100% certainty. But yes, I think there is a sound logical and empirical basis for believing that an incumbent party is at a disadvantage. It's the political version of the credible aphorism "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."


I think you're probably a over-hopeful about the potential email scandal. Not that I think the handicappers are the end-all and be-all, but at least their whole business depends on statistical analysis, and they're not vesting any emotion into it.
Click to expand...

Well, I've always had a lot of respect for real markets where real people put real money on the line. The problem is that the political betting markets are dominated by British because it's illegal to bet on politics in the US. And the British have a very distorted view of American politics. If Hillary wasn't running for President, I think it would be a near-certainty that she would be indicted for mishandling of classified information. As it is now, I think it's probably about 25%, although ultimately it's up to Obama. She better hope that Joe doesn't run and start polling well.
 
sunmaster14 said:
It's a rhetorical flourish, not really an expression of 100% certainty. But yes, I think there is a sound logical and empirical basis for believing that an incumbent party is at a disadvantage. It's the political version of the credible aphorism "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."




Well, I've always had a lot of respect for real markets where real people put real money on the line. The problem is that the political betting markets are dominated by British because it's illegal to bet on politics in the US. And the British have a very distorted view of American politics. If Hillary wasn't running for President, I think it would be a near-certainty that she would be indicted for mishandling of classified information. As it is now, I think it's probably about 25%, although ultimately it's up to Obama. She better hope that Joe doesn't run and start polling well.
Click to expand...

LOL. If Hillary wasn't running for President, nobody would give a crap about her emails.
 
sunmaster14 said:
It's a rhetorical flourish, not really an expression of 100% certainty. But yes, I think there is a sound logical and empirical basis for believing that an incumbent party is at a disadvantage. It's the political version of the credible aphorism "the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence."
Click to expand...


Yeah, I get that. I just don't know what the sound logical or empirical basis is for believing it. The greener grass is indeed a nice aphorism, but I suspect its effect is swamped by other factors.


... If Hillary wasn't running for President, I think it would be a near-certainty that she would be indicted for mishandling of classified information. As it is now, I think it's probably about 25%, although ultimately it's up to Obama. She better hope that Joe doesn't run and start polling well.
Click to expand...


What Tony said. If you're pinning your hopes to this email thing, you had better be looking for another ox to gore.
 
Last edited:
Brainster said:
Nixon was a clown, Reagan was a clown, Bush II was a clown.

You folks really have to get over the idea that everybody's got the same worldview as you. Otherwise half the time you will be amazed by what happens.
Click to expand...

Same applies to you.

If Trump somehow gets the nomination, it will be a cakewalk for Hillary.
 
Last edited:
deleted by user for being factually incorrect
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom