• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Poligaf episode 2010: The Empire Strikes Back

Status
Not open for further replies.
eznark said:
If the economy turns around and Obama's approval rating rebounds the GOP "establishment" will heartily support her being the sacrificial lamb.
Click to expand...
That is an interesting way of putting it and it can be very accurate. I think the GOP has two huge things going for it in tomorrow's election:
1) ~10% unemployment; and
2) It is an off-year election where the percentage of old people voting goes way up.

2 will definitely be gone in 2012. But unemployment/economy remains to be seen. If it is good, Obama wins. Period. If it is OK, it will be close. If it sucks, he'll probably go down. It is that simple.


It's the economy, Stupid.
 
DEO3 said:
Why exactly are Republicans doing so well this time around, especially with so many fringe candidates?
Click to expand...

Because people are sick and tired of Obama and the far left pushing their socialist agenda.
 
demon said:
What's the latest on Feingold vs Johnson? I'll be pretty depressed of we lose one of our best senators in a long time to that schmuck. :(
Click to expand...

Nate has Feingold holding onto his seat at 3.5% chance. Latest Polling has Johnson at anywhere from +2 to +9. No recent polls have Feingold with a lead
 
speculawyer said:
That is an interesting way of putting it and it can be very accurate. I think the GOP has two huge things going for it in tomorrow's election:
1) ~10% unemployment; and
2) It is an off-year election where the percentage of old people voting goes way up.

2 will definitely be gone in 2012. But unemployment/economy remains to be seen. If it is good, Obama wins. Period. If it is OK, it will be close. If it sucks, he'll probably go down. It is that simple.


It's the economy, Stupid.
Click to expand...

Plus, the candidates that actually have a shot at winning are pretty young, so they can wait til 2016 and if Obama is weak there is no way Palin beats Christie or Mitch Daniels in a primary. I think she is a God send for the Republicans in 2012. She cannot hurt them since the only way she gets the nomination is as a Bob Dole.
 
DEO3 said:
Why exactly are Republicans doing so well this time around, especially with so many fringe candidates?
Click to expand...

speculawyer said:
That is an interesting way of putting it and it can be very accurate. I think the GOP has two huge things going for it in tomorrow's election:
1) ~10% unemployment; and
2) It is an off-year election where the percentage of old people voting goes way up.
It's the economy, Stupid.
Click to expand...

The GOP doesn't have any proven plan to fix the economy but people are willing to try anything. And who would not want to believe "Cutting your taxes will fix the economy."?

And demagoguery remains a tried and tested technique that has worked for thousands of years. ("It is those damn illegal aliens/gays/elites that are causing your problems!")
 
^But everyone has already had their taxes cut.

eznark said:
If the economy turns around and Obama's approval rating rebounds the GOP "establishment" will heartily support her being the sacrificial lamb.
Click to expand...

I've been secretly hoping she'll wait until 2016 and run against Hillary Clinton. Dems could use the help in picking up all the seats they're going to lose tomorrow.
 
GhaleonEB said:
Wishful thinking is blind hope. The early voting data does not corroborate a massive GOP wave. And FWIW, the bulk of the early polling stations in Nevada were in conservative areas for most of the time; they only moved to Dem-friendly turf on Thursday and Friday last week. But Dems have an advantage in Nevada on the early vote, and a poll today had Reid up five among early voters. I can't reconcile that with a GOP wave. It may yet materialize, but it's odd that the early, enthusiastic vote isn't dominated by conservatives.

There's that, plus the cell phone effect, plus the regional mix hidden in the top-line generic ballot measures. Remember the analysis of the WSJ/NBC poll a few months back showing a GOP advantage at the top line, but the regional breakdown actually had Dems tied or up everywhere but in the south? Their current top line is similar right now.

That's not wishful thinking, it's pointing to data that indicates things aren't quite as dire as the top line polls indicate. Which may or may not be enough to save the Dems.

One more day to find out!
Click to expand...

If Reid loses, I'm gonna blame it entirely on you, Ghaleon!
 
cartoon_soldier said:
My predictions, General for House, race by race for the Senate tossups

House:
R+55

Senate:
Alaska: Lisa Murkowski (R)
California: Boxer (D)
Colorado: Bennet (D)
Illinois: Giannoulias (D)
Nevada: Angle (R)
Pennsylvania: Sestak (R)
Washington: Murray (D)
West Virgina: Manchin (D)
Wisconsin: Johnson (R)
Click to expand...

Sestak is a Democrat, unless you mean Toomey will win.

Anyway, I'm going to guess:
House
R +40

Senate
R +7?

(Anyway, as a left-leaning voter in a Democratic machine city, I'm really wondering if I want to award the Democrats for being the 'least worst option,' though some of the smaller candidates in my state are hilarious to watch but horrifying to imagine in power. For Congress, it doesn't matter, since my congresswoman is unopposed and the Senate seats in my state are probably not going to fall to the Republicans.)
 
thekad said:
^But everyone has already had their taxes cut.



I've been secretly hoping she'll wait until 2016 and run against Hillary Clinton. Dems could use the help in picking up all the seats they're going to lose tomorrow.
Click to expand...
very much off topic, but now that you mention it: is there a reasonable chance that Clinton might run in 2016?
 
GhaleonEB said:
Wishful thinking is blind hope. The early voting data does not corroborate a massive GOP wave. And FWIW, the bulk of the early polling stations in Nevada were in conservative areas for most of the time; they only moved to Dem-friendly turf on Thursday and Friday last week. But Dems have an advantage in Nevada on the early vote, and a poll today had Reid up five among early voters. I can't reconcile that with a GOP wave. It may yet materialize, but it's odd that the early, enthusiastic vote isn't dominated by conservatives.

There's that, plus the cell phone effect, plus the regional mix hidden in the top-line generic ballot measures. Remember the analysis of the WSJ/NBC poll a few months back showing a GOP advantage at the top line, but the regional breakdown actually had Dems tied or up everywhere but in the south? Their current top line is similar right now.

That's not wishful thinking, it's pointing to data that indicates things aren't quite as dire as the top line polls indicate. Which may or may not be enough to save the Dems.

One more day to find out!
Click to expand...

In regards to Nevada, there are some rumblings that Angle has already accepted that she will lose and is planning to primary Ensign in 2012.

Anyways my prediction is:

GOP gains 4 in the senate and 45 in the House
 
Averon said:
drunk on hopium?
Click to expand...

You know it. I'm going with the fact the Senate hasn't changed hands without the House changing hands since Teddy Roosevelt or whatever. Maybe the repubs get 35 in the house at most. Don't they need 39? I don't see it happening.
 
eznark said:
Plus, the candidates that actually have a shot at winning are pretty young, so they can wait til 2016 and if Obama is weak there is no way Palin beats Christie or Mitch Daniels in a primary. I think she is a God send for the Republicans in 2012. She cannot hurt them since the only way she gets the nomination is as a Bob Dole.
Click to expand...
Do you honestly think Mitch Daniels would perform well in the GOP nomination process? He seems too pragmatic to gain favor with conservatives given their current disposition.
 
Jackson50 said:
Do you honestly think Mitch Daniels would perform well in the GOP nomination process? He seems too pragmatic to gain favor with conservatives given their current disposition.
Click to expand...

Yeah. He's an excellent candidate. He's been featured favorably in Reason AND the Weekly Standard. That's spanning the party, right there
 
ggnoobIGN said:
What's with O'Reilly dropping liberal viewpoints on election night eve?
Click to expand...

I don't know, but he totally gave that alley-oop to Palin when he asked her to name that "white tall" guy.
 
This has to be part of some grander strategy.

Dems may very well take huge losses in this election. But think about it.

Republicans have a massive boost in momentum. If you know you are about to get hit by a car, you don't charge into the car. You try to not get hit as hard.

Trying harder would only make the inevitable defeat worse to bear and make the following election far worse for the Dems.

Relatively speaking, the Republicans will get nothing done because they will not have a majority in either house and Obama will be President. The massive wave of momentum was not infinite for the dems, and it will not be for the Republicans.

Even if the Republicans gain enough control to launch investigations into the EBIL Obama, they will not accomplish anything.

The Tidal wave will recede, and the Dems will have withstood it. The Republicans will get shit accomplished.

Dems unleash the massive testicles they have cultivated in the irrational irradiation of hatred in the first two years of the Obama Presidency, and actually get shit done. They lower the votes needed to end a filibuster. Obama said on The Daily Show that " the filibuster us not in the constitution. "

"How great it is, that the Republicans did so well two years ago!" The Dems shall crow.

"Alas, it accomplished all but naught! We grew balls, and spurt forth great amounts of progress! Where is your teapot now!"

it won't be there. Not for long.
 
NightBlade88 said:
I know it's completely impossible, but what if we saw GAINS for the Democrats. Now THAT'd would shock me to my core.
Click to expand...

In that situation, I honestly wonder if more loons would seek to remedy their grievances by some other, umm, "extra-constitutional means." They've said it before.
 
Lo-Volt said:
(Anyway, as a left-leaning voter in a Democratic machine city, I'm really wondering if I want to award the Democrats for being the 'least worst option,' though some of the smaller candidates in my state are hilarious to watch but horrifying to imagine in power. For Congress, it doesn't matter, since my congresswoman is unopposed and the Senate seats in my state are probably not going to fall to the Republicans.)
Click to expand...
The two-party system has its strengths, but this election it seems to show its weaknesses moreso. I don't mean that in a "ha ha you're fucked and your system sucks!" manner, I'm just observing it. For instance the gay community that voted for Obama. They are probably pissed that the President hasn't really done all that much (if anything) to support or improve their causes, so they are probably very reluctant to vote for him or his party again. However, they have to be batshit insane to instead go vote for the party and people that are downright discriminatory towards them. They've basically got nowhere to go. Another example is the Tea party movement. Right now all their candidates are still listed with the Republican Party, while in a multi-party system the movement would've been a separate party by now, and the conventional republican party could distance themselves from the lunatics.

It just seems as if there are far too many different fractions and visions to fit only in two parties. Just about everyone ends up being unsatisfied with their vote because their vote automatically also goes to a whole bunch of people they heavily disagree with.

Edit: or perhaps this aspect is always just as present in the US as it is today, and I'm only now noticing it. :)
 
NightBlade88 said:
I know it's completely impossible, but what if we saw GAINS for the Democrats. Now THAT'd would shock me to my core.
Click to expand...

You would hear about voter fraud for 2 whole years if that happened


Jackson50 said:
Do you honestly think Mitch Daniels would perform well in the GOP nomination process? He seems too pragmatic to gain favor with conservatives given their current disposition.
Click to expand...

He was for tax increases, he will be torn apart in the primary
 
eznark said:
Yeah. He's an excellent candidate. He's been featured favorably in Reason AND the Weekly Standard. That's spanning the party, right there
Click to expand...
Oh, I concur he is an excellent candidate. A figure that I hope would be more prominent and emulated on the right. Although I am dubious about most conservatives supporting a candidate who explicitly stated he would consider tax increases and a VAT, I hope you are correct. I want the GOP to nominate a respectable, intelligent candidate.
 
Can't help but think that there will be some surprise and the Dems can maybe come within territory of retaining the House. Media narratives of inevitability do tend to fall apart when reality hits.

The Crimson Kid said:
Hey guys, chin up!

After all, it's always darkest before it is completely black.
Click to expand...
:lol
 
+0 House
+0 Senate

I predict that, much like with our checkered history engendering political stability in Iraq, we will remain in stasis with regards to Congress. This predictably will devolve the fragile security we've fashioned through military force domestically, and civil society will unravel as an uprising of militias attempt to fracture the country into a sundry of ethnic enclaves. Both Canada and Mexico stand to gain greater influence on border states, while those along the Mason-Dixon line could form into a loose federation that mimics the governmental structures described in the Articles of Conferderation.

Obama will likely return to Kenya.
 
Souldriver said:
The two-party system has its strengths, but this election it seems to show its weaknesses moreso. I don't mean that in a "ha ha you're fucked and your system sucks!" manner, I'm just observing it. For instance the gay community that voted for Obama. They are probably pissed that the President hasn't really done all that much (if anything) to support or improve their causes, so they are probably very reluctant to vote for him or his party again. However, they have to be batshit insane to instead go vote for the party and people that are downright discriminatory towards them. They've basically got nowhere to go. Another example is the Tea party movement. Right now all their candidates are still listed with the Republican Party, while in a multi-party system the movement would've been a separate party by now, and the conventional republican party could distance themselves from the lunatics.

It just seems as if there are far too many different fractions and visions to fit only in two parties. Just about everyone ends up being unsatisfied with their vote because their vote automatically also goes to a whole bunch of people they heavily disagree with.

Edit: or perhaps this aspect is always just as present in the US as it is today, and I'm only now noticing it. :)
Click to expand...

That's fair, and I do agree with this to a point, but this problem isn't exclusively American; countries with first-past-the-post electoral systems and countries with large populations usually favor big parties. Britain is a pretty good example; the current coalition, a situation which is so common in some parts of Europe, is the exception that proves the rule there. Usually, one party maintains a stranglehold over the national political process. Americans would like to see more than the current political duopoly, and have said so in polling for ages, but the first-past-the-post system makes a third party untenable, and voters can figure it out.

But being America, we have very interesting state [provincial level] political systems; my state, New York, allows fusion voting and makes room for smaller parties on the ballot, for example, even though we don't practice proportional voting. So, for national seats, yes, national parties crowd the space out much of the time depending on the specific contest. But in some cases, depending on how successful small parties are, you can still have very interesting choices.
 
pretty excited to see the fallout from the aaron strife vs bigsicily polling interpretation battle.

not so excited about the empire striking back and taking the house.

predictions:

senate +8
house +52
 
How many Democrats that didn't vote for the stimulus/budget/Obamacare are the ones getting ousted tomorrrow? I think Nate Silver had an article on this like a year ago; the House may not be shifting that far to the right in practical terms. /hope
 
thekad said:
How many Democrats that didn't vote for the stimulus/budget/Obamacare are the ones getting ousted tomorrrow? I think Nate Silver had an article on this like a year ago; the House may not be shifting that far to the right in practical terms. /hope
Click to expand...
Their level of adherence to conservative ideology is besides the point - a Republican controlled House will forestall most any effort by Democrats and the administration to pass legislation in order to give their party the edge for 2012. it's a political strategy that might work, too.

The only hope is that Boehner and company don't have the skills of The Hammer to fashion a lockstep, unified caucus against Democrats.
 
I'm sticking to my bold (if not quite idiotic) prediction that the dems will narrowly keep both chambers.
 
thekad said:
How many Democrats that didn't vote for the stimulus/budget/Obamacare are the ones getting ousted tomorrrow? I think Nate Silver had an article on this like a year ago; the House may not be shifting that far to the right in practical terms. /hope
Click to expand...
We could stand to lose about 20 before the ideology of the House starts making a noticeable shift.

Given that we have reasonably progressive candidates in the 4-5 districts that are likely to flip from red to blue (HI-01, DE-AL, LA-02, IL-10, FL-25), we could probably drop 25 blue dogs, win those guys, and still be sitting pretty. But if the polling is accurate it'd be a miracle to just get to 218.

Tomorrow will be a real test of polling methods.

w/regards2feingold: The last public poll of WI-SEN in 1998 had him at 43%. Just saying.
 
Aaron Strife said:
We could stand to lose about 20 before the ideology of the House starts making a noticeable shift.

Given that we have reasonably progressive candidates in the 4-5 districts that are likely to flip from red to blue (HI-01, DE-AL, LA-02, IL-10, FL-25), we could probably drop 25 blue dogs, win those guys, and still be sitting pretty. But if the polling is accurate it'd be a miracle to just get to 218.

Tomorrow will be a real test of polling methods.

w/regards2feingold: The last public poll of WI-SEN in 1998 had him at 43%. Just saying.
Click to expand...

I demand your final predictions so I can bookmark them.

Any thoughts on Duffy and Ribble up north?
 
One tiny bright spot tomorrow: we get rid of Joseph Cao in New Orleans.

I don't care if he's a "moderate" Republican. He's a Boehner-enabler.
 
Gary Whitta said:
Wow so it looks like Sharron Angle is really going to get in. That's some scary shit.
Click to expand...
According to a post above the race i over and she knows she's lost.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

  • Locked
Air Strikes in Nuuk?
2
326
666 replied
  • Locked
Air Strikes in Caracas
54 55 56 57 58
3K
7K
Baemono replied
Sublime is back?
7
352
Hari Seldon replied
  • Poll
Back to the Future is a perfect movie
Opinion  2
85
1K
efyu_lemonardo replied
Backstreet’s back alright
39
717
MDSLKTR replied
Top Bottom