Ihre Suche nach "rachel bitecofer" ergab 4 Treffer. Sortieren nach: Bitte auswählen, Interpret A-Z, Interpret Z-A, Titel A-Z, Titel Z-A, Preis aufsteigend, Preis. Rachel Bitecofer – Bücher – gebraucht, antiquarisch & neu kaufen ✓ Preisvergleich ✓ Käuferschutz ✓ Wir ♥ Bücher! Eine Befürworterin dieser These ist beispielsweise die US-amerikanische Analystin Rachel Bitecofer, die den Erfolg der Demokraten bei den.
The Unprecedented 2016 Presidential ElectionRachel Bitecofer ist sich ihrer Sache sicher. Deshalb prognostizierte die Politologin, die für die Washingtoner Denkfabrik Niskanen Center. Eine Befürworterin dieser These ist beispielsweise die US-amerikanische Analystin Rachel Bitecofer, die den Erfolg der Demokraten bei den. This book explains the presidential election through a strategic focus. In the primaries both parties faced challenges from insurgent outsiders riding waves.
Rachel Bitecofer Sign up to like post VideoReflectUS November Fireside Chat: Dr. Rachel Bitecofer, Election Forecaster
Rachel Bitecofer absolutely nails it ; bolding added for emphasis. Spot on. I mean my god. Biden, Lincoln, the outside groups: they threw the best persuasion messaging in the history of persuasion campaigns at them.
What Ds need to do is come to terms that when it comes to the electorate, the very 1st thing that matters is party ID , and this includes Indie leaners.
Right leaning Indies- which make up a disproportionate share of the overall Indie pool, are closet Reps: they are not persuadable no matter how much you cater to them or whether or not Cindy McCain is on your side.
Did I state that plainly enough? You want to know why Rs are willing non-college voters? And it's because of these two effects working together.
Tangle: That kind of leads me into my next question. The model on the website you have, it looks like there are really four serious toss-ups that you have, which are Iowa, Georgia, North Carolina and Texas, and the others have a lean.
So I took the liberty of just turning those leans red and blue, and it came out to about a to electoral college lead for Biden over Trump, with those four states remaining as toss-ups.
So, I guess I'm just curious from your perspective, a are we really looking at a landslide of that proportion? And b if so, it seems like you guys feel pretty strongly that the Democratic Senate majority is in play right now, right?
Bitecofer: Oh yes. Basically my view for in Congress is not only are Democrats going to hold onto their seat gain in the House, they are going to be on offense.
And here is where that offense is going to be playing now. And in terms of the Senate, I was arguing that Colorado and Arizona were basically done deals.
But they need to net four though, not three, because they are probably going to lose Doug Jones' seat down in Alabama.
Trump is going to win Alabama, so you have to imagine a scenario in which Alabama people voting for Trump are going to crossover and vote for Doug Jones.
And most of Jaime Harrison's hopes and dreams come from the potential of a huge Black voter turnout surge. His pathway doesn't have to rely purely on Trump-Harrison voters.
And so Doug Jones needs Trump-Jones voters and a lot of them. And he's got more Black voters than McGrath, so he's in a better spot and him and Harrison are kind of in equal positions in that regard, but what Harrison has that Jones doesn't have is an enemy.
Harrison is running against Lindsey Graham, and Lindsey Graham is maligned. On the other hand, Doug Jones is running against an ex-Alabama football coach [laughs].
So that fourth seat to me has always been North Carolina, and the sex scandal down there notwithstanding. It's a sex scandal! It has caused that persuasion band amongst those pure independents to be so deep, so much bigger than what it would have been previously, that the Senate map — you've got Iowa, you've got the two Georgia senate seats, you've got Montana and you've got Kansas.
So the GOP has basically five or six pathways they have to defend to keep that 4th seat, you know what I mean?
And that's a lot of holes in a dike that you have to fill to keep that majority. Do you see what I'm saying?
All of them, every day, look increasingly harder to defend, you know? The advantage that the Republican party has is that Democrats are still not Republicans in terms of electioneering and messaging.
So I'm curious, if the models are so different, why are they producing such similar results? What's happening there? Bitecofer: Let me tell you this, number one, I'm putting out this stuff months and months and months ahead of time.
And at that time David Wasserman had put out an analysis in a piece that he was really, really passionately defending, arguing that Democrats would have to win the popular national vote in the House by at least 10 points to win 23 seats because of gerrymandering.
The only question is how many more seats and my guesstimate is they're going to pick up like 42 seats. So what you're referring to now is exactly the same thing.
Because everyone gets there in the end. Tangle: So the last time that we spoke, I asked you explicitly after you showed me your model: how does Trump pull this out?
And you gave me two scenarios: You said either there is a legit third party challenger, someone like Tulsi Gabbard, who fractures the party. Or, Democrats just totally blow the VP pick by not uniting the party.
So those two options are off the board. How does Trump pull this out? What's an outcome or a scenario where your model might be wrong, Nate Silver might be wrong, etc.?
In , that was not happening. It was not happening a month out and not happening a week out. And it looks like the electorate is having a hard time deciding.
Because yes, college-educated voters were slightly over-weighted in some state polls. But the fundamental problem was not the data, it was the interpretation of that data.
Think about how much that would have changed, how people would have behaved if they thought about the election and instead of everyone saying Clinton has got this in the bag, we had the uncertainty explained to people and also accounted for.
The reason why that's so important to understand now is one, that the small errors in polling were unweighted non-college educated voters — all that stuff has been corrected now.
Still, these polls are producing pretty sizable advantages for the Democrats. And number two, there can only be so much disconnect between analytics and outcome, so unless these fundamentals change, if we were to hold the election today, Joe Biden should win.
In other words, for Trump to win an election through voting we need to see different fundamentals in the data. And so can he retain the presidency via manipulation of the counting of ballots?
That's not something that this model can measure. This model is considering factors that are based on voter sentiment and fundamentals and preference.
And they assume that every vote that gets cast gets counted. I can't model for some other type of election. Tangle: That sort of covers my next question which was going to be about whether this model accounts for that variability.
One last thing before I let you go, speaking of things that have changed, I noticed that you are now working with The Lincoln Project and I'm just curious how you ended up working with them?
What has your role been over there? And I think something my readers are probably going to be wondering is whether your own political biases could or may have any impact on how you're seeing the election or modeling this thing out?
Bitecofer: Right. So I am a senior advisor at The Lincoln Project, I was approached to join the senior advisory board I think it was probably not long after we spoke, so it must have been March.
But the role sounds more glorious than it is. That is unfortunately not what I'm doing. But I do talk about them and promote the work they do.
The Lincoln Project, of course, is comprised of eight principals who are all former stars of Republican electioneering and campaigns.
Rachel Bitecofer. American political scientist. Retrieved June 12, Daily Press. Washington Post. The Hill.
Categories : s births Living people American women political scientists American political commentators Christopher Newport University University of Oregon alumni University of Georgia alumni 21st-century American women writers American women writers.