Of all your cherrypicking, that is the silliest.

There are only 3 governors in the United States, so a 1 in 15 event would only occur every 5 election cycles, you're right.

There are only 3 governors in the United States, so a 1 in 15 event would only occur every 5 election cycles, you're right.

82 % chance Quinn would lose in 2010

 

66% chance Quinn would win in 2014/

 

The 1 in 5 chance occurred in 2010 and the 1 in 3 chance occured in 2014. That is a 1 in 15 probability both of those occurring using his numbers, 6.6%.

Edited November 5, 201411 yr by Dick Allen

For some reason I thought Hickenlooper lost last night.

 

Cuomo is a horrible person and wouldn't stand a chance. I don't think anyone wants Kerry to run again.

 

Hickenlooper was behind when I went to bed last night, but Boulder County and Denver County (the D strongholds in my fair state) hadn't been counted yet - last I saw the margin of victory was very, very narrow.

 

I doubt he's a possibility in '16. He signed some gun control bill and he granted a reprieve to a guy set to be executed in '13. Beauprez actually ran an ad that featured the dad of one of the victims saying that Hickenlooper was planning to set the guy free (misinterpretation of the term "clemency").

 

Death penalty and guns rights are both issues that could hurt him with moderates...

 

 

There are only 3 governors in the United States, so a 1 in 15 event would only occur every 5 election cycles, you're right.

 

A guy batting .250 got 4 hits in one game. His batting average must be wrong!

Hickenlooper was behind when I went to bed last night, but Boulder County and Denver County (the D strongholds in my fair state) hadn't been counted yet - last I saw the margin of victory was very, very narrow.

 

I doubt he's a possibility in '16. He signed some gun control bill and he granted a reprieve to a guy set to be executed in '13. Beauprez actually ran an ad that featured the dad of one of the victims saying that Hickenlooper was planning to set the guy free (misinterpretation of the term "clemency").

 

Death penalty and guns rights are both issues that could hurt him with moderates...

 

Please, those issues should help him. He's a competent governor who oversaw a great state economy. He also will not have the foreign policy baggage of Clinton, which is considerable.

A guy batting .250 got 4 hits in one game. His batting average must be wrong!

Totally the same thing.

Please, those issues should help him. He's a competent governor who oversaw a great state economy. He also will not have the foreign policy baggage of Clinton, which is considerable.

 

He was re-elected in a state with a booming economy by less than 1%. That's extremely problematic.

 

 

He was re-elected in a state with a booming economy by less than 1%. That's extremely problematic.

 

Considering the election, I'm not sure it is. Udall got killed, he survived.

He was re-elected in a state with a booming economy by less than 1%. That's extremely problematic.

The political dynamics in Colorado are such that no state-wide candidate is going to win by any large margin. It's the deep-blue front range urban corridor versus the deep red rest of the state.

 

In time Colorado will probably become more reliably blue, with the influx of youngsters and minorities and the continued large growth of the corridor.

 

I have two comments ... 1.) Have any of you followed Brownback's career and how he's purposely s*** on the people of Kansas? I want to ask how in the hell people could re-elect him. Seriously, if you follow him at all, please comment on this for me. He has been the worst "public official" in terms of helping his people that I've ever come across, cept for those who are corrupt like Blago.

 

2.) Why isn't marijuana legal everywhere? With all the people in pain, people who don't want to drink their pain away, why isn't this "drug" legal? I mean, seriously.

If Hillary decides to run, I don't think the Republicans can do enough in two years to stop her. She's just way too popular.

 

I still say her best strategy would be to hardly campaign at all. I don't know how "likeable" she really is when she gets out on the trail. Yes she is popular. The concept of Hillary is popular. Strong woman with the last name "Clinton." First woman president. But her actual ability can certainly be questioned and her likeability I contend is not that great. Yes, she will win, cause the Democrats are never going to lose again in terms of the highest office, but she shouldn't tempt fate so to speak and make herself too available to the public lest she do something majorly stupid. I think she could win without campaigning to tell you the truth.

Considering the election, I'm not sure it is. Udall got killed, he survived.

 

Udall didn't get killed though - the race was called early, but the final results were inside of 5% (49-45 I believe).

 

My point - I find it difficult to consider Hickenlooper a candidate for the Presidency in '16 when he was barely able to keep his job in his home state with extremely favorable economic numbers.

 

 

The political dynamics in Colorado are such that no state-wide candidate is going to win by any large margin. It's the deep-blue front range urban corridor versus the deep red rest of the state.

 

In time Colorado will probably become more reliably blue, with the influx of youngsters and minorities and the continued large growth of the corridor.

 

That's not true of the last two gubernatorial elections (leaving aside prior R landslide wins).

 

In '06, Ritter (D) won by 17%. In '10, Hickenlooper won by 15%.

 

With the state economic numbers, it should be very surprising that Hickenlooper only won by 1.4% last night...

That's not true of the last two gubernatorial elections (leaving aside prior R landslide wins).

 

In '06, Ritter (D) won by 17%. In '10, Hickenlooper won by 15%.

 

With the state economic numbers, it should be very surprising that Hickenlooper only won by 1.4% last night...

Oh it's not a good sign for Hickenlooper.

 

But that is an obfuscation. Hickenlooper did not win by 15% in any real sense. He got 51%, while the Republican (Maes) and the other Republican/Constitution Party Illegal Alien Obssessive (Tancredo) combined for 48%. That is the true reflection of the split - 3%.

82 % chance Quinn would lose in 2010

 

66% chance Quinn would win in 2014/

 

The 1 in 5 chance occurred in 2010 and the 1 in 3 chance occured in 2014. That is a 1 in 15 probability both of those occurring using his numbers, 6.6%.

There are 50 governors in the United States (not counting Puerto Rico). You're talking about something that has a 6.6% probability of occurring during over 2 election cycles - 100 events.

 

How often would you expect, on average, something with a likelihood of occurring of 6.6% to occur given 100 chances?

That's kind of true, wouldn't be absolute, not every state is on 10-14-18 schedule, some have every 2 years (2 states), others are on 04-08-12 schedule.

82 % chance Quinn would lose in 2010

 

66% chance Quinn would win in 2014/

 

The 1 in 5 chance occurred in 2010 and the 1 in 3 chance occured in 2014. That is a 1 in 15 probability both of those occurring using his numbers, 6.6%.

 

You struggled with the concept of probabilities before when it came to baseball.

 

I predict that Abreu will make an out 60% of the time he has an AB. That doesn't mean my model is flawed when he hits a HR.

 

6.6% isn't zero, and I don't know that those two chances are completely independent.

 

So all a bunch of BS. Anyone can pick a number out of a hat and say, those are the probabilities, although they may be wrong. There is no way to really confirm any accuracy.

 

He was pretty accurate with the electoral college last Presidential election.

 

FWIW, Wang (Princeton) is trying to improve certainty (not just being right is better, but being right with higher probability). Nate Silver has tried to take an approach where it's okay that he gives relatively weak probability to his predictions.

What democrat do you guys think will win the Iowa caucuses? Because it matters....

What democrat do you guys think will win the Iowa caucuses? Because it matters....

 

 

Historically, you've had to win either Iowa or New Hampshire.

 

I can't remember, but Bill Clinton was one of the few exceptions...

 

 

 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/30/politics...lone/index.html

 

About the possibility of nobody contesting Iowa against Clinton.

 

 

 

Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders (zero chance to win), Warren (popular but needs more experience?), Webb, Biden, Klobuchar (MN, border state, might be looking to raise national profile, first "two women" ticket?) and Deval Patrick (pretty much zero chance NOW with Obama's performance, unfortunately race will be used against him).

 

Webb and Warren the most interesing resumes. O'Malley would be the 3rd choice there.

 

I always thought Bayh from IND had some potential but I think he's done with politics as far as I understand.

Edited November 6, 201411 yr by caulfield12

Historically, you've had to win either Iowa or New Hampshire.

 

I can't remember, but Bill Clinton was one of the few exceptions...

 

 

 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/10/30/politics...lone/index.html

 

About the possibility of nobody contesting Iowa against Clinton.

 

 

 

Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders (zero chance to win), Warren (popular but needs more experience?), Webb, Biden, Klobuchar (MN, border state, might be looking to raise national profile, first "two women" ticket?) and Deval Patrick (pretty much zero chance NOW with Obama's performance, unfortunately race will be used against him).

 

Webb and Warren the most interesing resumes. O'Malley would be the 3rd choice there.

 

I always thought Bayh from IND had some potential but I think he's done with politics as far as I understand.

 

Bayh has no chance at making it through a Democratic primary. Not even close to liberal enough. That's what I hate about both parties--excellent moderate candidates are drawing dead before they even start because the parties are controlled by the extremes. I would love to see somebody like Bayh, Bob Casey or Joe Donnelly on a national ticket for the Democrats but that is never happening.

My votes, since people are throwing them out there. Not listing the offices where people were unopposed (like Biss, my state senator, and that loser Berrios for Assessor)...

 

Governor: Rauner ®

Attorney General: Madigan (D)

Secretary of State: Webster ®

Comptroller: Simon (D)

Treasurer: Cross ®

US Senate: Durbin (D)

US House: Schakowsky (D)

State House: Myalls ®

*Vote all GREEN PARTY on Water District slots (G)

12th Judicial Subcircuit: Kaplan (D)

All judges on retention OK

 

I'll say again too, those last three lines, those should not be elected offices anyway.

 

So that's 4 R, 5 D, and 1x3 G for me. That's actually more Dems than I thought I'd end up with.

Daniel Biss is the man. I expect him to take the leap to Congress soon. Though living in Schakowsky's district makes that difficult.

 

And SS, why the Cuomo hate? Serious question. Haven't really heard much about him but I thought he was a generally well-liked guy.

The party that everyone is calling a lock to nominate Hillary Clinton is not controlled by extremes. The Clintons are the pinnacle of centrist DLC politics.

 

Daniel Biss is the man. I expect him to take the leap to Congress soon. Though living in Schakowsky's district makes that difficult.

 

And SS, why the Cuomo hate? Serious question. Haven't really heard much about him but I thought he was a generally well-liked guy.

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/19/andrew_cuomo_fake_democrat/