2016 US Presidential Election

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:03 am UTC

The UK's solution is just to limit the maximum donation from each person, £10k I believe. Our political campaigns are run on *way* less money than in the states.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
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 26, 2016 10:37 am UTC

Mutex wrote:The UK's solution is just to limit the maximum donation from each person, £10k I believe. Our political campaigns are run on *way* less money than in the states.


The entire United Kingdom is also roughly the size of Colorado. It doesn't cost as much to wallpaper the UK. with election banners or travel from one end to the other visiting all the various political battlegrounds as it does in the entire United States.

Not that the difference in political spending is proportional after correcting for territory size, but there are significant differences that do have a non-trivial effect on campaign costs.
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
HES
Posts: 4889
Joined: Fri May 10, 2013 7:13 pm UTC
Location: England

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby HES » Fri Aug 26, 2016 10:43 am UTC

There are also vastly more people in the US, so a per-person donation cap doesn't mean an equivalent campaign budget.
He/Him/His Image

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:07 am UTC

Colorado has 1/12th the population of the UK. Unless your election campaigns put posters up in the middle of the woods I don't think the land-area comparison makes sense. It'll increase the travel costs, sure. But in any case I wasn't suggesting the US should have an exactly equal amount spent on campaigns (even adjusting for population), just pointing out that the amount spent on an entire campaign here is roughly the cost of three tickets to a fundraising dinner in the US.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Fri Aug 26, 2016 12:31 pm UTC

I think I posted about this before, but it's kind of weird if you think about it.

The Netherlands and the US are about equally rich, and we are about 1/20th the size of the United States. I couldn't really find exact numbers, but it seems that in 2006 all political parties together spent about 15 million on elections in The Netherlands. That's both national and municipal elections. The 2012 elections in the US, combining all levels, seems to have cost about 6 billion.

So per capita the US spends about 20 times as much on their elections as we do.

Why is this? It can't be campaign finance rules, since the US rules are far more restrictive than the Dutch rules (There basically are no rules in NL). And when I compare our election systems, it seems to me that the Dutch system is actually more favourable to donations. Our parliament is much smaller, so each individual member has a relatively larger impact. And money donated to the losing side isn't a total waste, since we have proportional representation, so the loser still gets some influence.

One explanation could be that the US has much more international influence. The US may be only 20 times bigger, but they probably have far more than 20 times the influence. But if that's the case, you'd expect most US election spending to be foreign money, and that does not seem to be the case.

I guess I could say "cultural differences" but that's not really an answer.

If we cynically consider all political donations to be bribes, then it could be a scale effect. A Dutch company pushing some legislation would expect a 20x lower profit from that than a US company, because the market is 20x smaller. So logically they would offer a 20x lower bribe. But just because their country is smaller doesn't mean Dutch politicians sellout for less. If both Dutch and US politicians require the same absolute bribe amount to put aside their principles, it stands to reason that Dutch politicians will end up getting bribed a lot less often.

That would imply that smaller countries will generally be much less corrupt though, and I don't think that's true. Though it would be very interesting if it were true.
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

Mutex
Posts: 1472
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Fri Aug 26, 2016 12:52 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:IThat would imply that smaller countries will generally be much less corrupt though, and I don't think that's true. Though it would be very interesting if it were true.


That would imply that having more things decided at the local level, rather than state or national level, reduces corruption as more people need to be bribed to make any effect.

Dark567
First one to notify the boards of Rick and Morty Season 3
Posts: 3686
Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:12 pm UTC
Location: Everywhere(in the US, I don't venture outside it too often, unfortunately)

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dark567 » Fri Aug 26, 2016 12:55 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:One explanation could be that the US has much more international influence. The US may be only 20 times bigger, but they probably have far more than 20 times the influence. But if that's the case, you'd expect most US election spending to be foreign money, and that does not seem to be the case.
I think it is mostly this. I don't think it needs to be foreign money though, everyone in the US knows that the President has huge international influence and is overall probably the highest profile democratically elected position in the world. In many ways the direction of the presidential election in the US is signifier of the direction of the western(although I maybe overstating that slightly).


Diadem wrote:If we cynically consider all political donations to be bribes, then it could be a scale effect. A Dutch company pushing some legislation would expect a 20x lower profit from that than a US company, because the market is 20x smaller. So logically they would offer a 20x lower bribe. But just because their country is smaller doesn't mean Dutch politicians sellout for less. If both Dutch and US politicians require the same absolute bribe amount to put aside their principles, it stands to reason that Dutch politicians will end up getting bribed a lot less often.

That would imply that smaller countries will generally be much less corrupt though, and I don't think that's true. Though it would be very interesting if it were true.
Smaller countries are going to be more variant in general, they are both easier to corrupt, and easier to make incorruptible. I do think you see a lot of the smaller european countries be less corrupt than the US, precisely because they are smaller and still subscribe to Western Liberal values(just from a quick estimate, it seems like smaller western countries are less corrupt than big ones).
I apologize, 90% of the time I write on the Fora I am intoxicated.


Yakk wrote:The question the thought experiment I posted is aimed at answering: When falling in a black hole, do you see the entire universe's future history train-car into your ass, or not?

elasto
Posts: 3756
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Aug 26, 2016 12:59 pm UTC

Donald Trump’s new presidential campaign chief is registered to vote in a key swing state at an empty house where he does not live, in an apparent breach of election laws.

Stephen Bannon, the chief executive of Trump’s election campaign, has an active voter registration at the house in Miami-Dade County, Florida, which is vacant and due to be demolished to make way for a new development.

“I have emptied the property,” Luis Guevara, the owner of the house, which is in the Coconut Grove section of the city, said in an interview. “Nobody lives there … we are going to make a construction there.” Neighbors said the property had been abandoned for several months.


Bannon is executive chairman of the rightwing website Breitbart News, which has for years aggressively claimed that voter fraud is rife among minorities and in Democratic-leaning areas. The allegation has been repeated forcefully on the campaign trail by Trump, who has predicted the election will be “rigged” and warned supporters that victory could be fraudulently “taken away from us”.


Takes one to know one?

Details of the apparent breach of election laws by Trump’s campaign chief came as it was revealed that Bannon was once charged with misdemeanor domestic violence after a violent argument with his first wife. Court documents first obtained by Politico describe how, in 1996, his wife was left with red marks on her neck and wrist after the New Year’s Day argument at their home in Santa Monica, California, which began when she woke early to feed their twin daughters and he “got upset at her for making noise”.

The case was closed after Bannon’s ex-wife failed to appear in court to testify to the accusations. Five months later, she filed to dissolve their marriage. In a police report of the 1996 altercation, she described three or four previous arguments that “became physical”.

Bannon, who only recently came into the Trump camp in a move to reset the ailing campaign, is now under fresh scrutiny over his right to vote.

Under Florida law, voters must be legal residents of the state and of the county where they register to vote. Guidelines from the Florida department of state say that Florida courts and state authorities have defined legal residency as the place “where a person mentally intends to make his or her permanent residence”.

Wilfully submitting false information on a Florida voter registration – or helping someone to do so – is a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison.

Election officials in Miami-Dade make clear to prospective voters that they are required to actually live in the county and to use their home address in election paperwork. “You must reside in Miami-Dade County,” their website states. It adds: “When you register to vote, an actual residence address is required by law.” A county spokeswoman did not respond to questions relating to Bannon’s situation.

Three neighbors said the house where Bannon is currently registered to vote had been abandoned for three months. When the Guardian visited the property on Thursday a large window in the front aspect was missing. A soiled curtain was blowing through it. The driveway was a mess of tree branches and mud.

Bannon never appeared at the house, according to the neighbors. One of them, Joseph Plummer Jr, who lives next door, said [Bannon's ex-wife] lived at the house until earlier this year and that a man of Latino appearance in his 20s was the only male ever seen there. Asked whether a man of Bannon’s description stayed at the house, Plummer said: “No, that was not that individual, not at all.”


Fun fun!

link

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Aug 26, 2016 1:21 pm UTC

http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/an-anti-vaxer-in-the-white-house/493916/

Welp, looks like Johnson is leaning more antivax now. At least, he doesn't wanna make 'em mandatory. Ugh.

Edit: Looks like that's a super old tweet, and is no longer accurate. At least with regard to Johnson. Stein and Trump are more recent, however.

User avatar
Sizik
Posts: 1251
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sizik » Fri Aug 26, 2016 2:32 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:http://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/08/an-anti-vaxer-in-the-white-house/493916/

Welp, looks like Johnson is leaning more antivax now. At least, he doesn't wanna make 'em mandatory. Ugh.

Edit: Looks like that's a super old tweet, and is no longer accurate. At least with regard to Johnson. Stein and Trump are more recent, however.


From Other news:
Angua wrote:Politician actually changes mind and admits they were uninformed about science.

It's kind of US election related given the politician in question in Gary Johnson, but I doubt it will make a difference to the election. It's nice to see a candidate who was against mandatory vaccines reverse their position though.
she/they
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.

idonno
Posts: 300
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby idonno » Fri Aug 26, 2016 3:53 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
“where a person mentally intends to make his or her permanent residence”.

Wilfully submitting false information on a Florida voter registration – or helping someone to do so – is a third-degree felony punishable by up to five years in prison.


Fun fun!

link

Bannon, 62, formerly rented the house for use by his ex-wife, Diane Clohesy
"Mentally intends" is pretty open ended. Good luck proving that he didn't rent the place intending to reunite with his ex-wife and live there.

For that matter, with people heavily involved in politics the definition of "permanent residence” is pretty difficult to pin down. They often don't really have something that can realistically be described as a permanent residence. The practice of renting a place to be a "permanent residence" while basically living in Washington and traveling around the country is not in any way unusual and letting your ex wife live at your "permanent residence” while you are out of town is hardly illegal. As long as he isn't voting two places, this is pretty much a non issue.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Fri Aug 26, 2016 4:55 pm UTC

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYyZX3UW8Qc

Transcript: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... ge%2Fstory

Some opinion: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/27/us/po ... .html?_r=0

So last night, Clinton finally attacks Trump where the Republicans could not: the rise of the Alt-Right, and the racist tone that Trump has brought forth.

On the one hand, its the most obvious message needed to moderates, and even conservatives who do not believe that Trump is racist. On the other hand, by clamping down on the Alt-Right, she is bringing them to light and now the media is beginning to bring attention to them.

I think Clinton can win here if she focuses and stays on message: Trump is a birther and Trump supports the white nationalist message. But I'm not sure if her message will reach moderates or even conservatives if she continues with the racism slant. As I stated earlier in this thread, Democrats have a habit of playing the racism card way too early, and playing it this time is simply a case of "Boy who cried wolf". IMO, Clinton's best chance is for Trump and his supporters to respond in a way that proves her point.

The thing is, Trump has all of the cards in his hands. If Trump simply apologizes to Judge Curiel during a debate and the Khan family, it won't hurt Trump's support and it would completely negate Clinton's message. Hell, Trump toyed with flip-flopping on immigration and his supporters don't give a care. Clinton's argument isn't exactly the most solid either: the 1970s discrimination case was settled for example, so Trump isn't guilty of discrimination in the US Court of Law. Its also unclear how much Trump himself was involved in that case, or if it were lower-level managers who were discriminatory.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

elasto
Posts: 3756
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Aug 26, 2016 8:08 pm UTC

Calling Trump racist isn't 'boy who cried wolf'...

All Clinton needs to do is release a montage of Trump's various 'Mexicans are rapists', 'Muslims should be banned from the US' etc. statements all one after the other and her case is proven.

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1564
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby K-R » Fri Aug 26, 2016 8:20 pm UTC

Are you at all familiar with the 'boy who cried wolf' story?

You know eventually there actually is a wolf, right?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Fri Aug 26, 2016 8:36 pm UTC

K-R wrote:Are you at all familiar with the 'boy who cried wolf' story?

You know eventually there actually is a wolf, right?

Are you familiar with the emperor with no clothes? Racism has always been with us, it's just that nobody wants to say anything. If it's ever present, people on this forum think it's OK.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1180
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby commodorejohn » Fri Aug 26, 2016 8:54 pm UTC

I think his point is that calling Republicans racist has been enough of a go-to tactic for various politicians and pundits on the Democrat side of the aisle that people are pretty well inured to it. However, while I think that's certainly true with the Republican core base, I don't think it's anywhere near as true with moderate/independent voters - and in any case, Trump has said enough terrible shit over the course of the campaign that pretty much anybody who can be convinced at all already knows he's running on a platform of barely-subliminal xenophobia.
"'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.

elasto
Posts: 3756
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Fri Aug 26, 2016 11:27 pm UTC

K-R wrote:Are you at all familiar with the 'boy who cried wolf' story?

You know eventually there actually is a wolf, right?

(a) Care to name some other examples where Clinton has falsely cried wolf?

(b) Even for people who are incapable of seeing democrats as individuals, and so ascribe false cries of wolf to Clinton, it's patently obvious we don't have a false cry of wolf here.

People don't support Trump because they think he's not racist, they support him because they agree with his racism!

As cj says, pointing out Trump's blatant racism is not in order to convince Trump supporters to turn their back, it is to win over moderates and undecideds.

elasto
Posts: 3756
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Sat Aug 27, 2016 11:08 am UTC

An ex-wife of Donald Trump’s new campaign CEO, Stephen Bannon, said Bannon made antisemitic remarks when the two battled over sending their daughters to private school nearly a decade ago, according to court papers.

That revelation came a day after reports emerged that domestic violence charges were filed 20 years ago against Bannon following an altercation with his then-wife, Mary Louise Piccard.

In a sworn court declaration following their divorce, Piccard said her ex-husband had objected to sending their twin daughters to an elite Los Angeles academy because he “didn’t want the girls going to school with Jews”.

“He said he doesn’t like Jews and that he doesn’t like the way they raise their kids to be ‘whiney brats,’” Piccard said in a 2007 court filing.

...

Bannon’s remarks about Jews followed other comments that caught Piccard’s attention when they were visiting private schools in 2000.

At one school, she said, he asked the director why there were so many Hanukkah books in the library. At another school, he asked Piccard if it bothered her that the school used to be in a temple.

“I said, ‘No,’ and asked why he asked,” Piccard said. “He did not respond.”

Piccard said Bannon wanted the girls to attend a Catholic school. In 2007, when the girls were accepted at Archer, he told Piccard he objected because of the number of Jews in attendance.


Maybe it's because of the country I'm in, or maybe it's the way I was raised and schooled, but I find antisemitism an especially baffling form of bigotry

link

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2106
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Sat Aug 27, 2016 11:45 am UTC

It's also one that seems to get more enthusiastic condemnation and less overt cheering than some others.

Possibly relevant.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
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 » Sat Aug 27, 2016 1:16 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
K-R wrote:Are you at all familiar with the 'boy who cried wolf' story?

You know eventually there actually is a wolf, right?

(a) Care to name some other examples where Clinton has falsely cried wolf?

(b) Even for people who are incapable of seeing democrats as individuals, and so ascribe false cries of wolf to Clinton, it's patently obvious we don't have a false cry of wolf here.

People don't support Trump because they think he's not racist, they support him because they agree with his racism!

As cj says, pointing out Trump's blatant racism is not in order to convince Trump supporters to turn their back, it is to win over moderates and undecideds.


It's not a question of "Crying Wolf". It is however a marketing problem called "Message Fatigue" the most clever and entertaining advertisement can become irritating and counterproductive if it is repeated too often. The advertisement, and thus the product and the producer, become associated with boredom and irritation, the audience not only stops being receptive, but can refuse to buy the product.

Clinton and the Democrats have to remind the voters that Trump is a horrible person when he makes claims of being otherwise (and doesn't fuck it up by being himself when he says it), but can't afford to overplay the message and appear self-righteous, especially when Trump manages to highlight his own flaws in such spectacular ways.
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.

elasto
Posts: 3756
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Sat Aug 27, 2016 2:45 pm UTC

That's not under the control of the political parties though.

The amount of time the media devote to a topic is not particularly correlated with the amount of time the parties devote, let alone any one politician.

And that's excluding the echo-chamber nature of modern social media.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Sat Aug 27, 2016 5:52 pm UTC

Sure. But what Clinton says during her speeches is under her control.

And the question is: Is calling Trump a racist effective?

I think we all agree that it's true. But is it, at this moment in time, an effective attack.

I think it can be, the way she is playing it. Because she's not just attacking him for racism. She's using the words of Republican party leaders to do it. She's trying to distance Trump from the rest of the Republican party. That might work.
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

elasto
Posts: 3756
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Sat Aug 27, 2016 8:07 pm UTC

Well, that's exactly what I said in my first post on this matter: She should use his own words to condemn him.

And the point was made months ago that it would be trivial for Clinton to use the condemnation of fellow republicans against him. After all there was noone who thought he'd make it this far, so it's not like they held back.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
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 » Sun Aug 28, 2016 3:39 am UTC

Ran across the following article on the "Alt-Right" and "Neoreactionary" movements:

Alt-Right Explained

I'll admit that while I'd seen the terms a few times before, I hadn't actually been aware they described a defined political stance.
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.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:10 am UTC

elasto wrote:People don't support Trump because they think he's not racist, they support him because they agree with his racism!


Some people support Trump because of his Racism. However, approximately 52% of Trump supporters "hate Clinton" more than "agrees with Trump".
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:15 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
elasto wrote:People don't support Trump because they think he's not racist, they support him because they agree with his racism!


Some people support Trump because of his Racism. However, approximately 52% of Trump supporters "hate Clinton" more than "agrees with Trump".

A larger portion support him because he's addressing cultural grievances stemming from White people losing pace compared to other races/groups. Aka, Trump promises to take the economic pie back from others. Then everything will be like the old days where things may have been good or bad but at least those dirty blacks/mexicans/etc etc had it worse.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun Aug 28, 2016 5:04 am UTC

sardia wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
elasto wrote:People don't support Trump because they think he's not racist, they support him because they agree with his racism!


Some people support Trump because of his Racism. However, approximately 52% of Trump supporters "hate Clinton" more than "agrees with Trump".

A larger portion support him because he's addressing cultural grievances stemming from White people losing pace compared to other races/groups. Aka, Trump promises to take the economic pie back from others. Then everything will be like the old days where things may have been good or bad but at least those dirty blacks/mexicans/etc etc had it worse.


I disagree. I've talked to white supremacists online and can tell the difference between one and the typical pro-American anti-trade / anti-globalization guy.

Take basically any coal miner. For them, it really has nothing to do with race and more to do with Clinton's support of alternative energy. Democrats are very solidly anti-coal and believe in global warming.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Aug 28, 2016 6:39 am UTC

We need to go back over the voter data, because Trump brings up a lot of odd points. Like when Trump brings up anti-trade, it's a very valid point that trade has ravaged noncollege educated industrial bases, but analysis of Trump's voters aren't matching up with the stereotypes, at least the numbers of possible voters vs actual votes don't match.

commodorejohn
Posts: 1180
Joined: Thu Dec 10, 2009 6:21 pm UTC
Location: Placerville, CA
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby commodorejohn » Sun Aug 28, 2016 7:18 am UTC

His campaign has basically been semi-random pandering to a whole smorgasbord of groups that feel disenfranchised/alienated by the political mainstream. Only problem is he doesn't actually believe in any principle other than "me first," so he'll flip on his promises to any given group at the drop of a hat, only to flop right back a week later. It's this bizarre combination of almost animal cunning and blind incompetence.
"'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.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:05 pm UTC

sardia wrote:We need to go back over the voter data, because Trump brings up a lot of odd points. Like when Trump brings up anti-trade, it's a very valid point that trade has ravaged noncollege educated industrial bases, but analysis of Trump's voters aren't matching up with the stereotypes, at least the numbers of possible voters vs actual votes don't match.


A large chunk of it is simply the polarization of the USA is at its peak. Clinton is not an inspiring, unifying figure for this country, and a huge number of "Trump Supporters" are not really supporters but instead are incredibly anti-Clinton.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:18 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
sardia wrote:We need to go back over the voter data, because Trump brings up a lot of odd points. Like when Trump brings up anti-trade, it's a very valid point that trade has ravaged noncollege educated industrial bases, but analysis of Trump's voters aren't matching up with the stereotypes, at least the numbers of possible voters vs actual votes don't match.


A large chunk of it is simply the polarization of the USA is at its peak. Clinton is not an inspiring, unifying figure for this country, and a huge number of "Trump Supporters" are not really supporters but instead are incredibly anti-Clinton.

That doesn't explain the primary, where they had choices of anti-Clinton that weren't Trump. You need a chain of logic that explains the primary, and the general campaign.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun Aug 28, 2016 4:38 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
KnightExemplar wrote:
sardia wrote:We need to go back over the voter data, because Trump brings up a lot of odd points. Like when Trump brings up anti-trade, it's a very valid point that trade has ravaged noncollege educated industrial bases, but analysis of Trump's voters aren't matching up with the stereotypes, at least the numbers of possible voters vs actual votes don't match.


A large chunk of it is simply the polarization of the USA is at its peak. Clinton is not an inspiring, unifying figure for this country, and a huge number of "Trump Supporters" are not really supporters but instead are incredibly anti-Clinton.

That doesn't explain the primary, where they had choices of anti-Clinton that weren't Trump. You need a chain of logic that explains the primary, and the general campaign.


Jeb was trying out the new strategy of appealing to the non-existent Republican Hispanic vote, by speaking billingually, talking in Spanish during rallies, and talking about immigration policy. Unfortunately, Jeb had no chance, most likely because the Hispanic Vote simply doesn't exist in the Republican Primaries.

Marco Rubio rose to power on the Tea Party vote. Rubio then pivoted to the Hispanic vote by talking about immigration policy, which pissed off the Tea Party supporters. Rubio then lost his home state of Florida to Trump.

Kasich played it safe, too safe. He won Ohio but mostly stayed out of the press.

Ted Cruz is a jackass responsible for shutting down the government. I may prefer Trump over Ted Cruz, although Trump's post-primary rhetoric has gotten even more racist and dangerous. I probably was wrong for thinking Trump > Cruz during the primary season.

----------

The Republican Establishment tried to go with a multicultural, multi-racial message this year. Two Hispanics (Cruz and Rubio), African American (Ben Carson), Woman (Carley Fiorina), Indian (subcontinent) Punjabi Bobby Jindal, and capping it off with the bilingual Jeb Bush. Then Trump fucked it all up.

Not only was the message of multiculturalism utterly demolished by Trump (whose rising poll numbers forced the other candidates to focus on anti-immigration policies. Ex: Jeb Bush's "Anchor Babies" comment), but Trump demonstrated that within the Republican caucus, the multicultural message holds no power.

Within the general election, the multicultural message seems to be doing better, which is why Clinton is basically winning by doing nothing and trying to stay out of the spotlight.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3989
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 » Sun Aug 28, 2016 6:40 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote: -----

The Republican Establishment tried to go with a multicultural, multi-racial message this year. Two Hispanics (Cruz and Rubio), African American (Ben Carson), Woman (Carley Fiorina), Indian (subcontinent) Punjabi Bobby Jindal, and capping it off with the bilingual Jeb Bush. Then Trump fucked it all up.

Not only was the message of multiculturalism utterly demolished by Trump (whose rising poll numbers forced the other candidates to focus on anti-immigration policies. Ex: Jeb Bush's "Anchor Babies" comment), but Trump demonstrated that within the Republican caucus, the multicultural message holds no power.

Within the general election, the multicultural message seems to be doing better, which is why Clinton is basically winning by doing nothing and trying to stay out of the spotlight.


Basically most of the Republican field was trying to position themselves for the general during the primaries in an effort to beat the Democrats, and got slaughtered in the primaries by the guy who targeted his campaign for the primaries. Trump however flung himself too far, too fast to that hard right and hasn't been able (indeed if he is even capable of) changing direction and tone for the general.
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.

Drumheller769
Posts: 733
Joined: Mon May 11, 2009 7:46 pm UTC
Location: ♞♞♞

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Drumheller769 » Mon Aug 29, 2016 11:33 am UTC

If Mayonnaise was a candidate, I would likely vote for it, in the hopes a strong cabinet of Ketchup and Mustard could run the country.
The Great Hippo wrote:Arguing with the internet is a lot like arguing with a bullet. The internet's chief exports are cute kittens, porn, and Reasons Why You Are Completely Fucking Wrong.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Aug 29, 2016 3:17 pm UTC

commodorejohn wrote:His campaign has basically been semi-random pandering to a whole smorgasbord of groups that feel disenfranchised/alienated by the political mainstream. Only problem is he doesn't actually believe in any principle other than "me first," so he'll flip on his promises to any given group at the drop of a hat, only to flop right back a week later. It's this bizarre combination of almost animal cunning and blind incompetence.


This, yeah.

I mean, all politicians seem to do this to a degree, but he takes it to an extreme level. I can't actually be confident that he'll make any significant effort to follow through on promises. So, it matters fairly little if he claims to support the things I do.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:21 am UTC

Donaldus Trumpus wrote:Look how bad it is getting! How much more crime, how many more shootings, will it take for African-Americans and Latinos to vote Trump=SAFE!


Meanwhile, a PPP poll finds that 97% of African Americans view Trump unfavorably, with a further 3% undecided.
Exit the vampires' castle.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Tue Aug 30, 2016 7:15 am UTC

Trump has been using the 'Blacks will vote for me' angle a lot lately.

He's not saying that to get black voters. He's saying that to get white voters. He's basically saying he's not a racist (because you can't be a racist if black people vote for you). It doesn't matter if it's true, just that his supporters believe it is.
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

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4582
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby LaserGuy » Tue Aug 30, 2016 5:34 pm UTC

Lazar wrote:
Donaldus Trumpus wrote:Look how bad it is getting! How much more crime, how many more shootings, will it take for African-Americans and Latinos to vote Trump=SAFE!


Meanwhile, a PPP poll finds that 97% of African Americans view Trump unfavorably, with a further 3% undecided.


The included figure amusingly also gives Trump a lower favorability rating than the bubonic plague and bedbugs.

Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 2106
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 30, 2016 6:56 pm UTC

Well, yeah, one way or the other the bubonic plague's over in a week or two and you never get it twice.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6800
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Sep 01, 2016 1:48 am UTC

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/liv ... -election/
live-interview polls and everything else, is something we keep our eye on. When we launched our general election forecasts in late June, there wasn’t a big difference in the results we were getting from polls using traditional methodologies and polls using newer techniques. Now, it’s pretty clear that Hillary Clinton’s lead over Donald Trump is wider in live-telephone surveys than it is in nonlive surveys.

We don’t know exactly why live-interview polls are getting different results than other types of surveys; there are a lot of potential causes and it’s something we’ll be digging into. But it’s harder to measure this gap in the first place than you might think; pollsters make a lot of choices — whether to use a registered or likely voter sample, for example, or whether to poll Gary Johnson and Jill Stein — that could account for the differences between live and nonlive surveys. But one method to get at the difference is to use our forecast models, which account for these things.
TLDR Live polls says Clinton hasn't lost her convention bounce, but robo polls are saying she lost a bounce. In general, live polls are more trustworthy, but nobody knows for sure.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests