What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes early

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

This is interesting.

running our polls-only model using only live-interview surveys, Clinton leads Trump by 7 points and has an 86 percent chance of winning. Running it with only nonlive-interview polls, Clinton leads Trump by 5 points and has a 71 percent chance of winning.
Click to expand...

Trump does much better in surveys than in live interviewer polling. Assuming this is a significant and permanent effect, what is the cause?

One candidate: a variation on the Bradley Effect. The idea there is people will tend to lie, or at least overestimate their likelihood of performing a social good, when in person. In the Trump case it's reversed: Trump has said horrible things, and people are less likely to admit they are going to vote for him when dealing with an actual human. This is classic conflict/judgment avoidance, in line with subjects being less likely to admit to other forms of reprehensible behavior (drugs, crime, adultery) to a live interviewer.
 
Last edited:
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

alfablue said:
It would nice if the third would offer something realistic and appealing.
Click to expand...

A lot of people envision the 3rd party to be the moderates. I think a 3rd and 4th party would be the fringes. Israel's a good example of a system where you have center left, center right, and then lunatics. Problem is to form a coalition government you need to make deals with the nutjobs because rarely does one party win an outright majority.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

ScoobyDoo said:
We have a two party system. All these other parties do is get the party most unlike them elected.
Click to expand...

In the short run, but they also test market policies for the majors: if something catches on at least one (sometimes both) of the bigs appropriates it. That's what happened to Perot surfacing deficit control. Hopefully it will happen again with some of Bernie's ideas (breaking up the banks, Tobin transaction tax, college debt relief, reverse Citizens United, tax the f-ck out of the plutes).
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

alfablue said:
It would nice if the third would offer something realistic and appealing.
Click to expand...

I think Johnson's 2016 incarnation of the Libertarians is actually quite appealing for paleocons. Is it realistic? Well, if he actually got elected that would imply a mandate from the public and the majors scrambling to try to pull those people back, so... maybe.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Kepler said:
In the short run, but they also test market policies for the majors: if something catches on at least one (sometimes both) of the bigs appropriates it. That's what happened to Perot surfacing deficit control. Hopefully it will happen again with some of Bernie's ideas (breaking up the banks, Tobin transaction tax, college debt relief, reverse Citizens United, tax the f-ck out of the plutes).
Click to expand...

Bernie wasn't a third party. He did things the right way. He picked the party most like him and tried to change it. And in the long run won more than he ever would have if he had gone third party and got Trump elected President.

This is why, despite Handy's musings, that I will always hate Nader and blame him solely for what happened in 2000. He did more to destroy this country than anyone.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

ScoobyDoo said:
Bernie wasn't a third party. He did things the right way. He picked the party most like him and tried to change it. And in the long run won more than he ever would have if he had gone third party and got Trump elected President.

This is why, despite Handy's musings, that I will always hate Nader and blame him solely for what happened in 2000. He did more to destroy this country than anyone.
Click to expand...

I guess we will see if this is a sign of things to come. I would argue that Bernie was really a non-Dem running to take over the Democratic party, just as Trump was a non-Republican who did take control of the GOP. But the great thing is, if you do that you don't have to worry about the major siphoning off your votes. :)
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Kepler said:
I guess we will see if this is a sign of things to come. I would argue that Bernie was really a non-Dem running to take over the Democratic party, just as Trump was a non-Republican who did take control of the GOP. But the great thing is, if you do that you don't have to worry about the major siphoning off your votes. :)
Click to expand...

Still the right way to do it. Take Bloomberg. If he had even an inkling that Trump was going to win the thing he would have gotten in but he didn't want Hillary to lose it to that sociopath because he ran.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

alfablue said:
It would nice if the third would offer something realistic and appealing.
Click to expand...

What if Sanders ran independent? I'm finding a lot more people are becoming disenfranchised with the two parties, even if they don't "feel the Johnson".
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

FlagDUDE08 said:
What if Sanders ran independent? I'm finding a lot more people are becoming disenfranchised with the two parties, even if they don't "feel the Johnson".
Click to expand...

He runs as an independent and we get President Trump. Be fine with me cause we'd finally have the President we deserve but I have a feeling Kepler wouldn't be too excited.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

FlagDUDE08 said:
Tell that to the Federalists and the Whigs.
Click to expand...

It's been 160 years since the Whigs died. I'm thinking the two party system is here to stay unless we get rid of the Electoral College and perhaps single member districts.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

ScoobyDoo said:
He runs as an independent and we get President Trump. Be fine with me cause we'd finally have the President we deserve but I have a feeling Kepler wouldn't be too excited.
Click to expand...

Oh, I'd be excited...

Nobody deserves that. Even the guys who voted for Dubya in 2000 didn't deserve what we got.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

aparch said:
Wait, so it's okay security-wise for Trump and Friends to book a flight to Mexico City to meet with their President on very short notice.

... But Trump has to cancel his campaign stop in Chicago due to the risk involved?
Click to expand...

Why waste money on a campaign stop in Chicago when all of IL is voting D regardless? Then you consider that there are Mexican citizens' votes to be won and how could he pass up the opportunity?
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

St. Clown said:
Why waste money on a campaign stop in Chicago when all of IL is voting D regardless? Then you consider that there are Mexican citizens' votes to be won and how could he pass up the opportunity?
Click to expand...

He also shored up the Washington State vote last night. He's going to flip that baby.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Kepler said:
It's been 160 years since the Whigs died. I'm thinking the two party system is here to stay unless we get rid of the Electoral College and perhaps single member districts.
Click to expand...

If we get rid of the electoral college, you get mob rule, not a republic. Maybe it's time states start abolishing "winner take all".
 
FlagDUDE08 said:
If we get rid of the electoral college, you get mob rule, not a republic. Maybe it's time states start abolishing "winner take all".
Click to expand...

2 EV for winning the state
1 EV for winning each Cong. District.

The EC would then resemble more of a parlimentary system, but it would force the candidates to contest a lot more areas.
 
Kepler said:
This is interesting.



Trump does much better in surveys than in live interviewer polling. Assuming this is a significant and permanent effect, what is the cause?

One candidate: a variation on the Bradley Effect. The idea there is people will tend to lie, or at least overestimate their likelihood of performing a social good, when in person. In the Trump case it's reversed: Trump has said horrible things, and people are less likely to admit they are going to vote for him when dealing with an actual human. This is classic conflict/judgment avoidance, in line with subjects being less likely to admit to other forms of reprehensible behavior (drugs, crime, adultery) to a live interviewer.
Click to expand...

Didn't the Brexit polls show similar trends where the remain had a narrow but solid lead?

We all saw how that turned out. :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top