2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Tue Aug 16, 2016 7:02 pm UTC

Maybe Trump can try and flip some of the black demographic away from this Margin of Error chap.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Aug 16, 2016 7:06 pm UTC

sardia wrote:

Sure he could. A subgroup of a sample will have a couple hundred people at most in these kinds of polls. Don't make up fake trumps failings, we have plenty of real ones to choose from.


I'm well aware of the potential failings of polls. But 0% is an amusing number to hit nonetheless.

I don't believe that the number of African American voters will actually be 0%. But I bet you it will be lower than Romney vs Obama, and that's just sad actually.

Lazar wrote:Whatever his true level of support among the black population in those states is, it's probably not very different from 0%.


Indeed. Based on the margin of error, it could be as low as -3.4%!

Lazar wrote:
sardia wrote:Sure he could. A subgroup of a sample will have a couple hundred people at most in these kinds of polls. Don't make up fake trumps failings, we have plenty of real ones to choose from.

A statistically significant sample of black voters in OH and PA gave Trump 0%, which is the lowest that they could at the given level of analysis. There's nothing fake about this. (Note that they declined to report a number in Iowa because the sample was too small.) Whatever his true level of support among the black population in those states is, it's probably not very different from 0%.


Okay, as far as my serious response goes... you actually need a minimum of around 10 respondents in a category to have a statistically valid response. So yeah, making any conclusions about Trump's support being really 0% is wrong... but its probably fair to say that his African American support in Ohio is less than 5%.

Literally having 0 respondents means that the pollster should have continued polling until he found 10 African Americans who say "Trump". At least, if I'm remembering my high-school statistics class correctly.

So while the news-story claims that the result is statistically significant... it really isn't. 0 is NEVER a statistically significant result.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Tue Aug 16, 2016 7:17 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Aug 16, 2016 7:17 pm UTC

Look, on average, black voters do not tend to favor republican candidates. It's a very significant demographic tendency.

One could also say that support for Clinton is lower than it was for Obama among black voters, and not be wrong. You've got a big pile of no answer/undeclared. They're the interesting ones.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Tue Aug 16, 2016 7:21 pm UTC

http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_TX_81616.pdf I think this is the poll in question so 944*12% African-American.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11088
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Tue Aug 16, 2016 7:48 pm UTC

Literally having 0 respondents means that the pollster should have continued polling until he found 10 African Americans who say "Trump". At least, if I'm remembering my high-school statistics class correctly.

Nope.

If you poll 100 people in a category and all say "X", you can actually talk about what the reasonable possibilities in the general population.

Suppose in the real category population of a million souls there is a P% chance each would say "X".

Given that, a random sample of 100 would produce all "X" with a chance of P^100.

If we consider that random sample having a less than 2% chance of occuring as our threshold of reasonableness, we get P^100 < 2% as being the "ruled out" possibilities, or

100 ln(P) < ln(0.02)
ln(P) < ln(0.02)/100
P < 96% (approx)

So from the observation that 100 random people said "X", we can conclude that P >= 96% is reasonable.

Or, roughly, given that poll, it would be highly unlikely that more than 4% of african-americans in the state in question supported Trump.

If you sampled 200 it would be 2%, if you sampled 1000 it would be 0.004% at the same threshold (it is roughly hyperbolic (inverse linear) at this point (where all you are getting is X from a sample, after N samples the reasonable threashold becomes approximetally K/N for some constant K depending on where you put your threshold).
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision - BR

Last edited by JHVH on Fri Oct 23, 4004 BCE 6:17 pm, edited 6 times in total.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Aug 16, 2016 8:52 pm UTC

Yakk wrote:So from the observation that 100 random people said "X", we can conclude that P >= 96% is reasonable.

Or, roughly, given that poll, it would be highly unlikely that more than 4% of african-americans in the state in question supported Trump.


Which isn't "Zero". Run those numbers again to see how many you need to sample to make a conclusion that someone has "literally zero" support in a population. Unless sample-size == population size, you can never prove zero.

-------------

I'm looking through "Power rule of thumb" online and it seems like I misremembered. So I'm still wrong of course. But... if I change my argument, I'm still correct. So I'm changing my argument. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Tue Aug 16, 2016 10:14 pm UTC

While I agree that, in some cases, a large all-negative sample is significantly not proof of zero incidence*, I don't think this is one. You could demonstrate that support among the black population is lower than the odds of hitting the Jackpot on the National Lottery over here without proving it's zero.

The Jackpot - 6 Numbers (Typical prize: £2 million)
6 numbers are drawn at random from the set of integers between 1 and 59, which means there are 59!/(6!*(59-6)!) combinations of numbers - this means that the jackpot chance is 1 in 45,057,474


5 Numbers + Bonus Number (Typical prize: £50,000)
You are still matching 6 numbers from the 1 to 59 set as above, but you can now do it in 6 different ways (by dropping each of the main numbers in turn), therefore the chance is 1 in 45,057,474/6, which works out as 1 in 7,509,579.

The average percentage return is the share of the ticket sales devoted to prize funds, about 45%
1 in 7.5 million black voters voting Trump is really unlikely to matter at all, isn't it?

* For example, cannabis / mary jane / marijuana / hashish / الحشيش / weed. Arabic noun of profession from that root? حشاش. Plural حشاشون or حشاشين. To a French colonist, les hashashin. To an Englishman, that's indistinguishable from les ashashins. See where this is going? Supply people with enough of that stuff and they'll believe whatever BS you tell them and happily go off and kill anyone you tell them to kill and anyone else who gets in the way. It's really good for making young fools more open to suggestion during basic training when they're exhausted and their mental defences are down anyway. Could be useful to an immoral corporation with a government in its pocket. What if cannabis is totally harmless to 9999 out of 10000 people and causes hallucinations, delusions, schizophrenic disorders and/or psychotic episodes in the other 1 in 10000? Suddenly you need to make sure you're screening your recruits to make sure each of them has tried cannabis and didn't think much of it, just to filter out the ones who might go nuts from you adding that stuff to their food every day. The British Army really likes to hear from every applicant that he's tried cannabis and didn't think much of it. Who's to say they didn't try various smaller doses of LSD while they were at it, for that matter?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Mutex
Posts: 1386
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Wed Aug 17, 2016 10:26 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:I'm looking through "Power rule of thumb" online and it seems like I misremembered. So I'm still wrong of course. But... if I change my argument, I'm still correct. So I'm changing my argument. :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:


Changing your argument because it's wrong is a perfectly reasonable thing to do!

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6540
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Aug 17, 2016 1:00 pm UTC

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... own-image/
For those of you who think Trump can change, he just fired the ones trying to rein him in.
news broke that Trump was reshuffling his campaign staff further, reportedly elevating more aggressively minded people who don’t want him to temper his style. So, yeah, it seems unlikely that Trump will start acting like a traditional candidate.]


Fun fact, Trump's Twitter is controlled by two phones, one Android, and one iPhone. The Android posts mostly insults and has a different rhetorical style. Aka Trump's posts insults while his staff posts regular stuff.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed Aug 17, 2016 3:03 pm UTC

Admitting to the possibility of losing this early is dumb as all hell. Trump shouldn't help people break down his facade of strength.

What the fuck is he thinking?

Not that I'm complaining: anything to prevent the man from actually winning the election is a good thing. But it is yet another demonstration of his massive incompetence. At very least, I thought Trump understood that he got this far in part because of his illusion of strength. He's one of the physically tallest Republican Candidates, he really is an imposing figure on stage. He somehow managed to win the entire primary, and was overall doing a good job at flaunting his wins.

To portray weakness in a campaign rally to your core supporters is all sorts of WTF.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Aug 17, 2016 3:38 pm UTC

So, what happens if the Republicans actually crumple hard. Do the Libertarians actually have a legitimate chance then?

User avatar
moody7277
Posts: 578
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 7:06 pm UTC
Location: Extreme south Texas

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby moody7277 » Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:00 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:So, what happens if the Republicans actually crumple hard. Do the Libertarians actually have a legitimate chance then?


Gary Johnson's best case scenario was always to maybe get ~10-20 electoral votes and hope that the rest of the race was close enough that neither of the other two got 270, then have the incoming House say plague on both your candidacies and give him the presidency. It's moot if Clinton's gonna get >350 electoral votes while Johnson's best states were mostly going to be red anyway.
The story of my life in xkcdmafia:

Tigerlion wrote:Well, I imagine as the game progresses, various people will be getting moody.


BoomFrog wrote:I still have no idea what town moody really looks like.

User avatar
cyanyoshi
Posts: 389
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby cyanyoshi » Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:03 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:So, what happens if the Republicans actually crumple hard. Do the Libertarians actually have a legitimate chance then?

No, they don't. Johnson has trailed way behind Clinton in every poll that I know about. If the Trump campaign falls flat on its face come November, then we are looking at a Clinton landslide with very little room for Johnson to pick more than a single state. If Johnson starts doing well in polls for some reason and is allowed into the major debates, then who knows? Maaaaybe he could get some real exposure and finally get his campaign off the ground, but I still see no scenario in which he gets more votes than Trump.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7507
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:04 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:So, what happens if the Republicans actually crumple hard. Do the Libertarians actually have a legitimate chance then?

If I were the libertarian party, I would hope for a close election, or at most a mild loss for Trump. If Trump loses hard, the Republican party purges Trumpism and returns to old form for the next elctions- and the Libertarian party inevitably returns to their old form of being the internet loonie party.

Their best chances are if the Republican party keeps infighting, and keeps putting up divisive figure in the style of Trump. That might give them openings. Either to become the default right wing party in places where conservatives abhor Trumpism, or to become a second conservative party in deeply red districts.

Think about Thatcher and the SNP. She created room for them by winning - winning so hard that the Tories could piss off Scots for decades without being pulled back by electoral consequences. That's what the libertarians need, a republican party that drives away a locally--concentrated group of conservative voters. Not one single time, but structurally.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Aug 17, 2016 6:27 pm UTC

moody7277 wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:So, what happens if the Republicans actually crumple hard. Do the Libertarians actually have a legitimate chance then?


Gary Johnson's best case scenario was always to maybe get ~10-20 electoral votes and hope that the rest of the race was close enough that neither of the other two got 270, then have the incoming House say plague on both your candidacies and give him the presidency. It's moot if Clinton's gonna get >350 electoral votes while Johnson's best states were mostly going to be red anyway.


That seems like a really long shot. A close race incentivizes people to vote for the lesser of the two evils, I think, and right now, it looks like Clinton has a decent lead, so not particularly close. Could change, sure, but we've had many a close race before in which Gary didn't do particularly well. I don't think there's a lot of reason for that to work out this time.

But if Trump somehow bails on the race or becomes ridiculously obviously unviable...what then? Sure, it's horrible for Republicans regardless of what they do, but do they just abandon the presidency with months to go in the race? Wouldn't that have horrible downticket effects? I don't think they CAN do that.

A Trump win, or adoption of Trump-like strategy would probably be better for the libs in the long run, but it's fun to contemplate what the GOP does now if Trump properly trainwrecks.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lucrece » Wed Aug 17, 2016 9:25 pm UTC

Johnson's too moderate and mannered to attract the recalcitrant rednecks that put Trump over the Republican party's wishes.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6540
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Aug 17, 2016 9:36 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Johnson's too moderate and mannered to attract the recalcitrant rednecks that put Trump over the Republican party's wishes.

The goal isn't to take away Trump's voters. The goal is to form a coalition that equals at least 51 percent of the country. Racists and rich people used to go very well together. It's a lot more fractured now into messy amorphous groups.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1821
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby eran_rathan » Thu Aug 18, 2016 2:07 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:But if Trump somehow bails on the race or becomes ridiculously obviously unviable...what then?


What do you mean 'becomes' unviable? The man was unviable from day one (or long before, if you recall the birther nonsense he was highly involved in).
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6540
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Aug 18, 2016 2:17 am UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:But if Trump somehow bails on the race or becomes ridiculously obviously unviable...what then?


What do you mean 'becomes' unviable? The man was unviable from day one (or long before, if you recall the birther nonsense he was highly involved in).

10% odds of victory, maybe even 20%.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/ele ... locked-up/
Our polls-plus forecast looks at economic indicators, in addition to polls. The state of the economy has historically influenced the election, with a better economy helping the party holding the White House. The indicators we use — jobs (nonfarm payrolls), manufacturing (industrial production), income (real personal income) and others — currently show a decent but not great economy. The polls-plus model sees Clinton’s healthy lead in the polls and an economy that historically would presage a close election and so expects the race to tighten. Simply put, the polls aren’t perfect at this point in the cycle — there’s still a good deal of uncertainty inherent in trying to predict who will win the election and by how much based on the polls. We have more than two months until the election, and polls have coverage error, measurement error and non-response error.
Basic stats. If Trump was unviable, he either wouldn't have won the nomination, or he'd start losing more states, like say Texas. Note how barely red those states are. Make all those blue, and you will understand what unviable means.
Attachments
odds.jpg

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Thu Aug 18, 2016 7:39 am UTC

From Vox (about Trump's recent staff overhaul):
Manafort reportedly was at odds with Trump's efforts to "be himself." He disagreed, for example, with Trump's decision to tweet a picture of himself eating a taco bowl during Cinco de Mayo. (Manafort thought it was needlessly offensive, while Trump doesn't believe those two words can coexist.)

Am I missing some cultural context here? Why is eating Mexican food at a Mexican holiday offensive?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

commodorejohn
Posts: 1116
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby commodorejohn » Thu Aug 18, 2016 8:00 am UTC

It's been a long insane three and a half months, but as I recall the fuss was over the fact that A. it was shitty Trump-restaurant-brand faux-Mex, and B. it was when the memory of his "Mexicans are mostly rapists" shenanigans was still fresh in the public consciousness.
"'Legacy code' often differs from its suggested alternative by actually working and scaling."
- Bjarne Stroustrup
www.commodorejohn.com - in case you were wondering, which you probably weren't.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6300
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Thu Aug 18, 2016 12:25 pm UTC

The biggest problem was that Trump basically came off as saying "See, I'm not racist because I'm eating Mexican food."
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3941
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Thu Aug 18, 2016 12:48 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:The biggest problem was that Trump basically came off as saying "See, I'm not racist because I'm eating Mexican food."

And taco bowls are a U.S. invention using tex-mex ingredients, so it's not even an actual central or south-american dish.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 18, 2016 2:10 pm UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:But if Trump somehow bails on the race or becomes ridiculously obviously unviable...what then?


What do you mean 'becomes' unviable? The man was unviable from day one (or long before, if you recall the birther nonsense he was highly involved in).


Unelectable. I mean, it's overtly obvious that he's a BAD candidate, even the establishment has long been displeased with being stuck with him. But right now, he's not performing well. It's early, there's recovery time, true...but what if he continues to tank, and his polling gets worse and worse? It's possible. It's not a foregone conclusion yet, but if the post nomination trends continue, Trump could get there.

What's the resulting move for the Republican establishment if Trump nose dives into full on universal hatred? They're not gonna support Clinton. They need to do SOMETHING to get people to the polls for the down ballot.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8270
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Thu Aug 18, 2016 2:16 pm UTC

Focus on local issues, probably. They already have people on the ground all over, I imagine, trying to push Trump. So instead of him, they push local issues, disconnect the other people up for election from Trump. Try to win the house this election and keep the bullshit non-functioning congress crap they've been doing until now.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3941
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Thu Aug 18, 2016 2:20 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:What's the resulting move for the Republican establishment if Trump nose dives into full on universal hatred? They're not gonna support Clinton. They need to do SOMETHING to get people to the polls for the down ballot.


Given that there's time limits to get names on the ballot for Pres candidate, I think that ship has effectively sailed off without a crew. If the conservative voters need someone at the top of the ticket to show for down-ballot contests I'd guess they're not going to show. Establishment leadership would be best served with rice pilaf and a red wine sauce..errr... best served by crafting advertisements reminding conservatives of the importance of down-ballot votes, if at all possible without outright saying "we know you can't vote for the crackpot but please remember your other Republican candidates..."
Last edited by Dauric on Thu Aug 18, 2016 3:20 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Aug 18, 2016 2:22 pm UTC

Right. They literally can't put someone else on the ballot in many states. Most? Not sure. State by state ballot rules are complex.

Their options are strongly limited. Some people are literally endorsing Clinton.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3941
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Thu Aug 18, 2016 2:51 pm UTC

Even if the Republicans were able to switch out Trump for another candidate (which I'm not even sure they can do, even if the states allow late-comers this far in the process, the R. candidate has been declared, not sure how many states prevent second candidates from a single party, or which states, if any, would allow swapping candidates.) there's two (other) problems:

First is alienating the rabid Trump supporters and further dividing the conservative vote. Those who support Trump do so because they feel the Establishment doesn't represent them and plays unfair to maintain their power. It's possible such a move could actually reinvigorate Trump's campaign reminding conservatives of that aspect, when so far it's been the Democrats who have borne the brunt of those accusations with the Wikileaks "Russian hacked e-mails".

Second is we're in the middle-late part of the media game, the time to go for name recognition was early in the year (and this was a phase Trump's personal-brand promotion tactics were ideal for, so much so that he was able to become the only name anyone talked about, even if it was "Trump is such an Idiot!"). A new candidate put forward by R. Establishment would have to fight to get their name known by the public at large, then draw enough attention away from Trump's antics to get the media attention not only to get his name out, but to overpower Trump's marketing advantage.

I think Establishment Republicans are going to have to accept the next four years will be a train wreck (at least to conservative views) in the presidency and try to get voters out to the polls to vote down-ballot to maintain holds over the House and Senate as well as local state governments. Then they have four years to deal with the dumpster fire in/of their party before trying again in 2020.

But by 2020 the corporations will be openly running everything anyway and well-armed counterculture types will be waging gang wars in the streets...
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
PeteP
What the peck?
Posts: 1451
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2011 4:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Thu Aug 18, 2016 7:39 pm UTC

http://fusion.net/story/338016/trump-manafort-marines-nato-protests/ Basically aggressive protests against Marines in the Ukraine were allegedly political plants and connected to Manaforts clients and
A memo leaked to the Times of London on Wednesday suggests Ukrainian prosecutors believe Manafort actively helped to foment unrest in the incident, one of a long line of provocations they say may have contributed to Eastern Ukraine’s secession from the country and Russia’s interference in the region, known as Crimea. The reason for the protests, prosecutors say, was to give Manafort’s clients a domestic political advantage. If that was the aim, they succeeded spectacularly.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11262
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Thu Aug 18, 2016 8:03 pm UTC

Public Policy Polling found Deez Nuts, created by an Iowa teen, had the support of 3 percent of voters. The Green Party's Stein received 2 percent, the same as deceased gorilla Harambe.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu Aug 18, 2016 10:40 pm UTC

Steve Bannon (Breitbart News), Roger Ailes (Former Fox Chariman), and Trump.

Clearly, Trump is starting a news organization. Well... he might be planning on it if he loses anyway.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1300
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby freezeblade » Thu Aug 18, 2016 10:50 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:Steve Bannon (Breitbart News), Roger Ailes (Former Fox Chariman), and Trump.

Clearly, Trump is starting a news organization. Well... he might be planning on it if he loses anyway.


I actually think this would be the exit strategy. Once he loses, he blames the media, and creates his own "news" organization, to pander to all of his disgruntled supporters.
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

elasto
Posts: 3568
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Aug 19, 2016 10:50 am UTC

Donald Trump marked the relaunch of his struggling presidential campaign with a shock new tactic: an apology.

“Sometimes in the heat of debate and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don’t choose the right words or you say the wrong thing,” he told a rally in North Carolina on Thursday night. “I have done that. And, believe it or not, I regret it. I do regret it. Particularly where it may have caused personal pain.”

The remarks, during Trump’s first public appearance since the appointment of a new campaign manager, are a sharp reversal of an approach that seemed to follow the adage “never retract, never explain, never apologise”.

“I like not to regret anything,” the candidate previously told radio host Don Imus in May after controversy over comments that questioned senator John McCain’s war record. “You do things and you say things. And what I said, frankly, is what I said.”

Many more such controversies have passed without regret since, but Trump’s closely watched standing in opinion polls has plummeted after he last month attacked the parents of a Muslim war hero who died serving in the US army.

On Thursday he appeared to acknowledge for the first time the damage such incidents were doing to his election standing, though did not specify which precise “personal pain” he was responding to.

“Too much is at stake for us to be consumed by these issues,” he told the unusually subdued crowd at the Charlotte convention center.

“As you know I am not a politician,” he added, to initial cheers. “I have never wanted to learn the language of the insiders, and I’ve never been Basically Decent – it takes far too much time, and can often make it more difficult to achieve total victory.”

The rally, which began with a long tribute to victims of flooding in Louisiana, was also unusual for relying entirely on a teleprompter. Previously the campaign’s use of prepared remarks has mostly tended to be reserved for formal policy addresses, rather than standard stump speeches at rallies.

Often stiff, the sight of Trump reading out lines rather than ad-libbing seemed to perplex a crowd not used to hearing him saying phrases such as: “I’ve travelled all across this country laying out my bold and modern agenda for change.”


Michael Moore claims Trump became the Republican candidate almost by accident:

Moore, writing on The Huffington Post, says that Trump ran for president as a negotiating tactic, hoping to leverage a higher pay packet from NBC. The broadcaster had formerly employed Trump as the star of the reality TV show The Apprentice, but fired him after he called Mexican immigrants “drug dealers” and “rapists” at his campaign launch.

According to Moore, who does not name his source, Trump continued his campaign only to increase his stock with other television networks.

“And then something happened,” Moore writes. “And to be honest, if it happened to you, you might have reacted the same way. Trump, to his own surprise, ignited the country, especially among people who were the opposite of billionaires.”

Moore says Trump found the attention his campaign attracted intoxicating.

“Trump fell in love with himself all over again, and he soon forgot his mission to get a good deal for a TV show,” Moore writes. “He was no longer king of the deal-makers — he was King of the World!”

Moore then catalogues a series of incidents from the past few weeks that have seen Trump’s approval ratings plummet. Citing the nominee’s attacks on the family of Humayun Khan, a Muslim American who was killed while serving in Iraq, and his implication that “second amendment people” could use gun violence against Hillary Clinton, Moore suggests that Trump’s outlandish behaviour was an attempt to “self-sacrifice” his campaign.

“Maybe the meltdown of the past three weeks was no accident,” writes Moore. “Maybe it’s all part of his new strategy to get the hell out of a race he never intended to see through to its end anyway.”


I think that Moore is right on the first part but wrong on the second; As this apology shows, he didn't expect to still be in it, but now that he is, he has no desire to exit, instead he can't bear the thought of not winning...

User avatar
Echo244
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed May 20, 2015 9:49 am UTC
Location: Ping! Ping! Ping! Ping!

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Echo244 » Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:23 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
Donald Trump marked the relaunch of his struggling presidential campaign with a shock new tactic: an apology.

...

The rally, which began with a long tribute to victims of flooding in Louisiana, was also unusual for relying entirely on a teleprompter. Previously the campaign’s use of prepared remarks has mostly tended to be reserved for formal policy addresses, rather than standard stump speeches at rallies.

Often stiff, the sight of Trump reading out lines rather than ad-libbing seemed to perplex a crowd not used to hearing him saying phrases such as: “I’ve travelled all across this country laying out my bold and modern agenda for change.”


It's looking to me like his team have picked up how horribly they seem to be alienating people beyond those who turn up to rallies (to the point of losing endorsements)... does anyone think this change in style is actually going to bolster his support amongst moderates? Or has he done too much damage, and this will gain nothing while losing him the support of the Trump Rally attendees?
Unstoppable force of nature. That means she/her/hers.
Has committed an act of treason.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Aug 19, 2016 1:36 pm UTC

Apology: okay, good in theory.

But unless he actually apologizes by explicitly saying that his Khan statements were wrong, that his "Mexican Heritage" statements about Judge Curiel were wrong, that... etc. etc. I'm not really gonna listen to him.

He's kinda on the right track, but he does have to actually apologize for the right reasons. Even then, coming in with an apology only because its clear that his poll numbers are down just gives me the taste of awful-awful politician trying to win votes.

Michael Moore claims Trump became the Republican candidate almost by accident:


I read those statements as "Michael Moore shoots some ideas from the hip for entertainment value". His theory does a good job of entertaining the audience but doesn't seem to have any factual teeth to them.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:06 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3941
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:06 pm UTC

I think the question is : Can Trump keep this "new attitude" up through November?

He's made vaguely conciliatory comments before, then turned around and been a rat bastard no more than days later. This apology wasn't only vague but was lead off by the phrasing "...sometimes you make mistakes..." in a phrasing that sounds reminiscent of "well if you were up here you all would fuck it up too." which rather dilutes the sincerity of his already wishy-washy "apology". He also claimed that while he may not have chosen the polite wording, that he's never lied to the voters. <insert eye-roll here>

It's not a promising start for turning over a new leaf, more like a leaf covering up what we already know is there.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6540
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:20 pm UTC

My hot take is that this apology is bullshit but the people on the fence will eat it up. They are gonna get stringed along again like abused person in a bad relationship. Then Trump will break his promise again.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ahammel » Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:32 pm UTC

Dauric wrote:I think the question is : Can Trump keep this "new attitude" up through November?
Considering his new team's stated tactic is to 'let Trump be Trump', I'll be amazed if he can keep it up through the weekend.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3941
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Fri Aug 19, 2016 2:50 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:
Dauric wrote:I think the question is : Can Trump keep this "new attitude" up through November?
Considering his new team's stated tactic is to 'let Trump be Trump', I'll be amazed if he can keep it up through the weekend.

Well, like I noted I'm not sure he's even managed to keep it up through his own 'apology' speech, but yeah, I figure his need to be the center of media attention will get the better of him before Monday, or by the end of next week at the absolute outside.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1903
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Fri Aug 19, 2016 3:30 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:
Dauric wrote:I think the question is : Can Trump keep this "new attitude" up through November?
Considering his new team's stated tactic is to 'let Trump be Trump', I'll be amazed if he can keep it up through the weekend.
Melania will be amazed if he can keep it up for more than five minutes.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CorruptUser, Majestic-12 [Bot], Vo2max and 11 guests