2016 Election
Quote: RonCThough it may not have happened "on campus," the story does say it happened a university-owned apartment. That may make their fight harder.
Should they fight the punishment? Yes. They may not win.
Looks like there's a big gray area in regards to that. The students' attorney says that the university doesn't actually own the apartment. Instead, they have a long-term lease on the property. *shrug* Here's the full story:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/11/11/students-who-used-gun-to-defend-apartment-protest-punishment
EDIT: Looks like Gonzaga is getting the message: Gonzaga to reconsider gun policy following public backlash
Quote: Beethoven9thLooks like there's a big gray area in regards to that. The students' attorney says that the university doesn't actually own the apartment. Instead, they have a long-term lease on the property. *shrug* Here's the full story:
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/11/11/students-who-used-gun-to-defend-apartment-protest-punishment
EDIT: Looks like Gonzaga is getting the message: Gonzaga to reconsider gun policy following public backlash
I don't agree with the policy but I also don't think the actual ownership of the apartments changes anything if the rules for the university-controlled property bans guns. It is still "private property" and the business controlling the property has every right to have rules and enforce them.
Quote: RonCI don't agree with the policy but I also don't think the actual ownership of the apartments changes anything if the rules for the university-controlled property bans guns. It is still "private property" and the business controlling the property has every right to have rules and enforce them.
Right, but that's part of what the students' attorney is trying to argue. I guess he's saying that managing a property is different from actually having ownership and that the apartments are not actually a university residence. (I'm not an attorney though, so I don't know how successful this argument will be)
But as I mentioned to terapined, the students are fighting to change the punishment, not the policy itself. If they're unsuccessful, I doubt they'll take the liberal route and get the government to force the school to change its policy.
A recent poll indicates that Christie's popularity might not extend far beyond his home state
Its early anyway. Many that ran for the repub nomination last cycle, I didn't know existed till they declared.
Quote: terapinedThe poll may be correct, maybe not. As the years go by, I have less and less confidence in polls. 20 years ago, just about everyone had a land line. You could call a bunch of numbers and get a pretty accurate cross section of the voters. How is it done today? Call landlines? Its pretty rude to cold call a cell phone. Any idea how this poll was conducted? If Nate Silver weighs in on Christy, then I am all ears.
Its early anyway. Many that ran for the repub nomination last cycle, I didn't know existed till they declared.
You know, I totally had the same opinion on polls for a long, long time. But over the past 10 years or so, I've done a 180. (And yes, this gets me in trouble with conservatives who rail against the polls...lol) For example, in the last 2 presidential elections, the polls were pretty much correct.
The poll in the article was conducted by Princeton Survey Research. They're not as high profile as say, Gallup or Rasmussen, but I think they have a pretty decent reputation. I have no problem with results from reputable pollsters.
Keep in mind, this doesn't mean that this particular poll is correct since statistical noise will rear its ugly head every now & then, but my personal opinion is that numbers from reputable pollsters are genuine, and not fudged.
Quote: terapined. Many that ran for the repub nomination last cycle, I didn't know existed till they declared.
The debates (debacles) changed the polls for all those potential nominees. Some went up and down in the polls after each debate depending on if anything happened, or someone stumbled.
If you look at Christie, not where he stands now, but what happens when (or if) he actually starts campaigning. He seems like a no nonsense guy who could ignite crowds. Whether he's what the party wants is another problem, but a different one than whether he will run a good campaign that makes progress.
“There’s an entitlement that is starting to emerge that I think is unhealthy for people and unhealthy for our country.”
—Ashton Kutcher on 'Ellen'
Clinton 42%, Christie 43%
Clinton 49%, Paul 40%
Clinton 51%, Cruz 36%
Clinton 49%, Ryan 40%
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1976
Quote: Beethoven9thElection 2016 national poll by Quinnipiac University:
Clinton 42%, Christie 43%
Clinton 49%, Paul 40%
Clinton 51%, Cruz 36%
Clinton 49%, Ryan 40%
http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes-and-centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1976
Those numbers are not that spectacular for Hillary Clinton. She has the huge name recognition advantage (duh) and has been a national candidate before. Her husband was a very popular President who made things work with a Republican Congress. You can give credit for "working together" to whoever you want; the President makes out on the deal because of his position. There was scandal but most of that is not even in play at this point.
Given the things I mentioned, I would think Hillary should be 15%-20% up on these folks right now. No one is even running against her at this point so very little negative is being said about her compared to what is being said about the others. Christie is in for a battle in his party and it is in the news now. Paul and Cruz have had recent (not necessarily deserved) negative press about fillibusters, etc. Ryan has not been in the news much lately.
I'm already getting excited about the next election cycle (2014) and looking forward to the Presidential cycle in 2016. I have my opinions, of course, but I also enjoy the process overall.
first year in office, is that what we really need?
A shrill old Granny Girch running everything?
Have we lost our minds? If old done nothing,
accomplished nothing Hillary is the best we can
do, after empty suit, lying Barry, we are indeed in
a lot of trouble.
Can some one with the proper legal knowledge consider that Hillary was already at least 1/2 owner of the presidency.
If she divorced Bill she would get half of what ever pension he get's for that office, 1/2 of it belongs to her.
Doesn't it bother anyone besides me that she couldn't even run her own house {Monica} but thinks she's the leader of the free world.
She makes me physically ill. Does anybody recall her and Bill's governor's school in Arkansas where they took kids away from their family's and taught the kids to resist their parents and be cross dresser's?
Come on people, the lies about being shot at on the tarmac in some stan country when she ran last time, has America forgot her part in getting Stevens killed in Benghazi? Help me.
Whoever is in charge of this rotating puppet show that's pulling the strings for the teleprompter reader, I'm begging you please find a different puppet.
Not her, no way, damn near anybody but her, she's sickening, a fraud, a shill, captured, owned, a pig, somebody help, I'm losing my mind,
Edited to add comma after owned and pig and correct spelling on help
Quote: petroglyph
Doesn't it bother anyone besides me that she couldn't even run her own house {Monica} but thinks she's the leader of the free world.
It bothers me a great deal, not just that she could not keep Bill at home, but she blamed "the right" for it happening. Also that she lets him fool around on her for years and stays with him.
Put another, way, if you are not going to stand up for yourself why would I expect you to stand up for the country?
She wants to be called "Hillary Rodham Clinton" yet her entire rationale for being qualified is she was "Mrs Bill Clinton."
And she is supposed to be the front-runner?
Quote: AZDuffmanIt bothers me a great deal, not just that she could not keep Bill at home, but she blamed "the right" for it happening. Also that she lets him fool around on her for years and stays with him.
Put another, way, if you are not going to stand up for yourself why would I expect you to stand up for the country?
She wants to be called "Hillary Rodham Clinton" yet her entire rationale for being qualified is she was "Mrs Bill Clinton."
And she is supposed to be the front-runner?
Absolutely, forget the polls, overseas bookies have her as the frontrunner.
Clinton 5/2
Interesting enough, Last couple weeks, Rubio and Christie 10/1
Christie still at 10/1 but Rubio is now 9/1 overall looking at over 20 bookies and just trying to figure out an average.
Actual Rubio odds are spread from 6/1 up to 12/1 depending on which bookie you use.
Bookies are not left or right, they set the odds based on reality.
Here's the website I check, has over 20 bookies and the odds offered for the 2016 election
http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2016/winner
Quote: terapined
Bookies are not left or right, they set the odds based on reality.
They set them to balance the action. Right now it is so early taking her at 5/2 is a decent value play. It might have been in 2006 as well. We may see a mirror image of 2008 where the incumbent and his policies become so unpopular and a slowing economy combine to just hand it to the other side.
Stage 1 is already there, the slowing economy we will see.
One key to defeating Hillary is to not let her get away with her usual "you hit a girl" routine.
Quote: AZDuffmanOne key to defeating Hillary is to not let her get away with her usual "you hit a girl" routine.
"What difference does it make?!?!"
Quote: rob45"What difference does it make?!?!"
She runs as some kind of "strong woman" when she is anything but. Last time she cried on camera and got a bump in the polls. The things that swing voters in this country are amazing.
Quote: rob45Just throwing a Benghazi dig into the mix.
Oh, my turn to miss the point :-)
Too much going on today to read into things. Joys of remodeling.
Quote: SOOPOOI have not heard much about Andrew Cuomo on the national scene. But I think he would have a good chance of winning. For those not in the know on New York politics, he easily won election as govenor on usual Democrat Party themes. But despite taking gobs of campaign contributions from traditional Democrat leaning unions, he essentially broke the will of the unions. He has established new pension rules for all new hires that lower the costs (and thus value to the recipients) by over 50%. The health care costs are also being shared more by the new public employees. For years, when I was in 'the union', until a few months ago, I paid 0 health care costs. Then after the Cuomos changes even us old timers had to start paying 10%, and new hires are paying 20%. I will guess Cuomo will be able to spin New York's version of Obamacare exchanges as a success. He speaks well. And he is a great fundraiser. His cost cutting as a Democrat would make him an attractive candidate to the many wealthy "fiscal conservatives/ social democrats" that never really have a candidate to like.
Ha! Might as well. You think things are bad now, wait until all of the US is one, giant NYS.
That's funny, SOOPOO, thanks for the early morning smile =)
But seriously, if he has so much as a chance of getting POTUS, I'll kill him myself -_-
Quote: rob45"What difference does it make?!?!"
Good one rob45
And "It takes a village"
Quote: AZDuffmanThe things that swing voters in this country are amazing.
You got that right. The thing that had me shaking my head recently was Bill de Blasio in NYC. Very early on, he was down in the polls, and nobody gave him much of a chance to win the mayoral election. Then everything changed after he made his black wife and biracial children the face of his campaign.
I kept thinking to myself, what the hell does it say about our society when voters are as superficial as this?!?! I find it so ironic that the people who claim to want a colorblind society are actually the ones who are ALWAYS focused on race. In any case, de Blasio is a big time liberal. Hope he runs NYC into the ground so I can get a good laugh.
Quote: Beethoven9thHope he runs NYC into the ground sea so I Face can get a good laugh enjoy his otherwise excellent homeland.
Fixed your post ;)
LOL!
It's no wonder the USA as a whole can't clean up the messes it finds in its own backyard - the two party system has systematically and assuredly split the country to the point where no one cares about what is best for their neighbors, they simply want to see their party win so they can snub their nose at the "loser" for 4 years.
Liberal - the word itself causes some people to retch and gag and say that the country is going to hell in a handbasket. Pavlov's dog has nothing on bipartisan political debate. To watch people here practice one-upmanship and show their disregard for what REALLY matters within the US borders... it is sad.
Yes, it does take a village but unfortunately there seems to be an overabundance of village idiots on both sides of the tracks.
Quote: Buzzard" Yeah, like all of the swing voters that McCain and Romney got? *chuckle* "
Romney did not put enough distance between him and the tea party. Christie won't make that mistake. Nor pick an unqualified bimbo
as his VP.
OK, then it must not matter what the Tea Party thinks after all because they feel the same way about Christie and Romney.
(Also, FYI, Palin had more executive experience than Obama in '08. So if she was unqualified, what does that make him? lol)
42% President Obama
42% the average Tea Party member
16% not sure
Poll: 42% Identify with Obama Politically, 42% with the Tea Party
Quote: Beethoven9thThis poll may burst the bubbles of some of the anti-Tea Party folks here: Who do you agree with more politically?
42% President Obama
42% the average Tea Party member
16% not sure
Poll: 42% Identify with Obama Politically, 42% with the Tea Party
I read the article, its a landline phone survey. Skews to the older generation.
Wow, Obama did great with older crowd.
The more Republican try to end Medicare, the more seniors are turning their backs on them.Quote: terapinedWow, Obama did great with older crowd.
Quote: terapinedI read the article, its a landline phone survey. Skews to the older generation.Quote: Beethoven9thThis poll may burst the bubbles of some of the anti-Tea Party folks here: Who do you agree with more politically?
42% President Obama
42% the average Tea Party member
16% not sure
Poll: 42% Identify with Obama Politically, 42% with the Tea Party
No, it doesn't. As of 2013, landline phone surveys are still accepted (by ALL pollsters) as an accurate way to judge public opinion. They even predicted the outcome of the last election within the margin of error. So if you have some statistical evidence that shows otherwise, please reveal it because you will singlehandedly turn the polling industry on its head.
Quote: TheNightflyIt amazes me how much is made of the person running for office when in reality, The GOP supporters will simply bash any Dem candidate for any reason they can find and vice-versa. If Romney suddenly changed parties and ran as the Democratic frontrunner, the knives would be out from the same Democrat bashers here and if Hillary somehow chose to run as a Republican and was given the blessing of the party, she'd be lauded by the GOP supporters for being such a strong and wise woman. You don't agree? Let's watch as down the road, when the dust clears and the party candidates are revealed if anyone changes their tune or if they simply throw their blind support behind their party once again, regardless of the name on the ballot. It's amusing but at the same time rather sad to read the posts from people who simply have chosen one side or the other and insist that the other side is wrong, evil and misinformed.
It's no wonder the USA as a whole can't clean up the messes it finds in its own backyard - the two party system has systematically and assuredly split the country to the point where no one cares about what is best for their neighbors, they simply want to see their party win so they can snub their nose at the "loser" for 4 years.
Liberal - the word itself causes some people to retch and gag and say that the country is going to hell in a handbasket. Pavlov's dog has nothing on bipartisan political debate. To watch people here practice one-upmanship and show their disregard for what REALLY matters within the US borders... it is sad.
Yes, it does take a village but unfortunately there seems to be an overabundance of village idiots on both sides of the tracks.
When you used "takes a village" I hope you weren't referencing my disdain for Ms Clinton as a sign that I'm either liberal or conservative. If you've seen some of my other posts, my point of view is anything but the divide between the red/blue team.
My opinion is The Clinton's all, right on down to their evil spawn Chelsea are the epitome of evil. As are the Bush family all the way back to at least Prescott.
It just sickens me that in American politics the only choices we've had for a long time all come from a limited gene pool. I read where Chelsea is starting her political career already as are the daughters Bush.
A country with over 3 hundred million people and the choices to run it can only come from the royal families assures me this country is doomed to extinction and there isn't anything I can do about it. Although I've tried for over forty years. No one wants to hear it. Everyone still votes their own pocketbook. It's so much easier to get the news and form opinions from watching the tv.
I liked your post and agree with the byline at the bottom. The only thing I can do at this time is be happy. I can't effect the team follower's.
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: terapinedI read the article, its a landline phone survey. Skews to the older generation.Quote: Beethoven9thThis poll may burst the bubbles of some of the anti-Tea Party folks here: Who do you agree with more politically?
42% President Obama
42% the average Tea Party member
16% not sure
Poll: 42% Identify with Obama Politically, 42% with the Tea Party
No, it doesn't. As of 2013, landline phone surveys are still accepted (by ALL pollsters) as an accurate way to judge public opinion. They even predicted the outcome of the last election within the margin of error. So if you have some statistical evidence that shows otherwise, please reveal it because you will singlehandedly turn the polling industry on its head.
No poll is acceptable if the outcome is not the one that you want it to be...
Quote: s2dbakerThe more Republican try to end Medicare, the more seniors are turning their backs on them.
Last I checked Obamacare was the biggest gutter of Medicare out there.
MSNBC Suspends Alec Baldwin’s Show For Two Weeks
Quote: AZDuffman
So, do liberals still hate that conservative rasmussen?
Elections aren't close enough to matter what his polls show. Wait until they are.
Quote:Silver analyzed 105 polls released by Rasmussen Reports and its subsidiary, Pulse Opinion Research, for Senate and gubernatorial races in numerous states across the country. The bottom line is that on average, Rasmussen's polls were off by 5.8% with a bias of 3.9% in favor of the Republican candidates.
Silver doesn't think they're falsified, so much as the model he uses.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2012/Info/rasmussen.html
The Economist/YouGov
44% Approve
54% Disapprove
Quinnipiac
39% Approve
54% Disapprove
Pew Research
39% Approve
56% Disapprove
Quote: Beethoven9thHmm...that's awfully tempting. 1.5 to 1 would probably be more fair, BUT there's not a doubt in my mind that Christie will lose if he's nominated.
If we did bet, and if (by some freak occurrence) I lost, can I just mail you the money? I don't want to show my face after a loss. ;)
If you're absolutely sure about that, 2:1 is great lol.
I also share the view that Christie probably wouldn't win, but that's against Clinton. For the record I lean Republican (if I had to choose betweed D and R) and I'm from NJ. I just don't think he can appeal largely enough to the Southern/Midwestern states that sometimes vote Blue. Christie is a brilliant politician - and has managed to go from a "we hate the other guy" elected governor, to having low approval ratings to having GIANT approval ratings in a Blue state.
I don't think that it's safe to put Hilary near 2:1 at the moment, but she is the clear frontrunner at the moment on the Democratic side. There's just too much that can happen between now and then to safely put her at 2:1 to win the Presidency, I'm imagining closer to 4 or 5:1. She has to win the Democratic primary (she's in the best shape she's ever been to do that,) the Republicans have to put up a beatable candidate (not impossible by any means, look at the field in 2012) and then she has to beat them. She also has to decide to run, but based on the gossip I've heard from people who are connected - she's pretty sure she's going to. Not 100%, but pretty darned close - especially because she has people that want to fund her.
BTW, Hilary's also a brilliant politician. I don't personally like her politics, but I can appreciate her political abilities.
Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: terapinedI read the article, its a landline phone survey. Skews to the older generation.Quote: Beethoven9thThis poll may burst the bubbles of some of the anti-Tea Party folks here: Who do you agree with more politically?
42% President Obama
42% the average Tea Party member
16% not sure
Poll: 42% Identify with Obama Politically, 42% with the Tea Party
No, it doesn't. As of 2013, landline phone surveys are still accepted (by ALL pollsters) as an accurate way to judge public opinion. They even predicted the outcome of the last election within the margin of error. So if you have some statistical evidence that shows otherwise, please reveal it because you will singlehandedly turn the polling industry on its head.
I don't know if you'll accept "common sense" as a reason that it's biased towards older generations.... But it's illegal to poll to cell phones, younger people are more likely to be to busy too complete a 20 minute survey, and are less likely to care enough. I've done them most of the times I get calls for them (unless I actually have something really important to do) and I'm young, but I'm an exception, being a political science major. There's a lot of reasons why polling is biased, but there's also a lot of important reasons it's still done.
The Democratic Party has some insane tools they use to predict and affect outcomes. It's all about complex mathemetics, polling matters a lot less nowadays than you think. The Democratic Party has built up new micro targeting systems...
Quote: Boney526I don't know if you'll accept "common sense" as a reason that it's biased towards older generations....There's a lot of reasons why polling is biased, but there's also a lot of important reasons it's still done.
"Common sense"? Trust me, you're being too clever by half on this one.
Explain to me exactly how the polls are skewed (in detail), and then I will educate you on the reality of polls and explain why you are absolutely wrong.
(NOTE: I apologize if it sounds like I'm picking on you, but I've heard these accusations against the polls for years now. And, in my experience, most of the people who make these accusations have little, if any, knowledge about how polls are actually conducted)
Since the Republicans ended up with John McCain and Mitt Romney in the last two cycles, the only reason that I can think of for changing the selection process and crushing the South's influence in that process is to get the winning candidate to swing back to the left as soon as possible so as to not have all that sick and disgusting Republican crazy-talk fresh in the voter's minds when November comes.
The problem with that strategy is YouTube which is forever.
Quote: Boney526Quote: Beethoven9thQuote: terapinedI read the article, its a landline phone survey. Skews to the older generation.Quote: Beethoven9thThis poll may burst the bubbles of some of the anti-Tea Party folks here: Who do you agree with more politically?
42% President Obama
42% the average Tea Party member
16% not sure
Poll: 42% Identify with Obama Politically, 42% with the Tea Party
No, it doesn't. As of 2013, landline phone surveys are still accepted (by ALL pollsters) as an accurate way to judge public opinion. They even predicted the outcome of the last election within the margin of error. So if you have some statistical evidence that shows otherwise, please reveal it because you will singlehandedly turn the polling industry on its head.
I don't know if you'll accept "common sense" as a reason that it's biased towards older generations.... But it's illegal to poll to cell phones, younger people are more likely to be to busy too complete a 20 minute survey, and are less likely to care enough. I've done them most of the times I get calls for them (unless I actually have something really important to do) and I'm young, but I'm an exception, being a political science major. There's a lot of reasons why polling is biased, but there's also a lot of important reasons it's still done.
The Democratic Party has some insane tools they use to predict and affect outcomes. It's all about complex mathemetics, polling matters a lot less nowadays than you think. The Democratic Party has built up new micro targeting systems...
Heres a fascinating article regarding surveys.
http://www.people-press.org/2012/05/15/assessing-the-representativeness-of-public-opinion-surveys/
One of the major problems is simply finding people to participate.
16 years ago, the contact rate to reach an adult was 90% with a 36% participation rate.
Today a typical survey gets a participation rate of 9%
Its tougher to reach people cold calling and then most don't wanna bother with it.
Couple years ago I was approached in the mall to participate in a survey. It was pretty involved and they were gonna give a very small amount of money for my time. It was conducted in an office regarding a restaurant chain and their menus, uniforms, promotions, commercials ect. The person conducting the survey was a total pro on the sly side. She just wanted results and fast. I'd look at the menu and she would say something like "How about say looks bright easily readable and a lot of choices". She would write stuff like this throughout the survey process as she suggested answers. It was quick, I simply rolled with anything she suggested, it was all reasonable, then it was over, I got like 10 bucks or so. She's probably a huge star in the survey business lol
The ironic thing is that the article talks about the challenges of conducting surveys, yet it never says that they aren't accurate. It also doesn't say that they are skewed toward older people (which is what you had claimed earlier).Quote: terapinedhttp://www.people-press.org/2012/05/15/assessing-the-representativeness-of-public-opinion-surveys/
One of the major problems is simply finding people to participate.
16 years ago, the contact rate to reach an adult was 90% with a 36% participation rate.
Today a typical survey gets a participation rate of 9%
Its tougher to reach people cold calling and then most don't wanna bother with it.
I question whether that was a scientific survey at all. If so, that girl should have been fired.Quote: terapinedCouple years ago I was approached in the mall to participate in a survey. It was pretty involved and they were gonna give a very small amount of money for my time. It was conducted in an office regarding a restaurant chain and their menus, uniforms, promotions, commercials ect. The person conducting the survey was a total pro on the sly side. She just wanted results and fast. I'd look at the menu and she would say something like "How about say looks bright easily readable and a lot of choices". She would write stuff like this throughout the survey process as she suggested answers. It was quick, I simply rolled with anything she suggested, it was all reasonable, then it was over, I got like 10 bucks or so. She's probably a huge star in the survey business lol
Hillary's Nightmare? A Democratic Party That Realizes Its Soul Lies With Elizabeth Warren
This reminds me of all the press Jennifer Granholm received several years ago. She was supposedly a big rising star in the Democrat party with unlimited potential.....that is, until she f*cked Michigan up even more. lol
Quote: Beethoven9thEarlier, someone mentioned Elizabeth "Pocahontas" Warren running for president. I laughed when I then saw this article:
Hillary's Nightmare? A Democratic Party That Realizes Its Soul Lies With Elizabeth Warren
This reminds me of all the press Jennifer Granholm received several years ago. She was supposedly a big rising star in the Democrat party with unlimited potential.....that is, until she f*cked Michigan up even more. lol
OK, I read it did you? Beats me what happened with her indian heritage story?
I know a lot of people want to identify with indian blood, but if that's the worst she's done given the nsa database she is way better than the rest who have insider protection.
Warren makes good points. I was disappointed when I read she was at least somewhat in favor of the agenda 21, giving authority for small arms including in the US to the united nations, another despicable outfit.
You mentioned Michigan, is that where Michelle Bachmann is from? Now there's a piece of work.
Christie vs. Cuomo
42% Cuomo
47% Christie
Christie vs. Clinton
56% Clinton
40% Christie
If the 2012 election were held today, Mitt Romney would win.
49% Romney
45% Obama
(Too bad stupidity took hold last Nov)
