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
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Sun Oct 30, 2016 3:52 am UTC

I voted on Tuesday. I was the 6931st or something at my polling station. It does feel good to have it out of the way.

The BBC had an article on low voter turnout in the US. They interviewed one young woman who said she wasn't voting because she didn't know enough about the candidates' positions, rather than learning more about them...

I would be mortified giving an answer like that. What a stupidly lazy route to take.

Edit: Here's the article.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

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 » Sun Oct 30, 2016 4:20 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:Exactly. They found emails that are important. Nobody debies that.
I deny that. It's not even clear that they're new emails. It's just as likely that theyre additional copies of emails that the FBI has already examined. And even if they are new, they're almost certainly more of the same thing that has already been leaked: viz: really boring stuff. At worst, some of it was classified, which means that somebody who once worked for Clinton practised poor infosec by transferring them to an improperly secured account on a shared laptop.

Only in the fevered imaginings of Republicans do any of these messages say things like "Please give Secretary Clinton my thanks for the bribes and the leaked classified documents. Tell her I'll get right on those political assassinations she wanted. Xoxo, Satan".
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun Oct 30, 2016 4:44 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:
ahammel wrote:Comey's main concern seems to have been that it would look really bad on everybody if it leaked before it went public, which is fair enough, I guess. I don't know if there was a way he could've handled it without taking over a news cycle.


Exactly. They found emails that are important. Nobody debies that. Comey was already facing a revolt. Again, nobody denies that. He had to get out in front of it or it would have looked WORSE for Clinton. This was actually the best outcome for her. The FBI agents who were against him would have leaked this and that would be more damning then not releasing it.


I disagree on "Important". The FBI hasn't read the emails yet. They just know that they might be related to Clinton's email server. I also disagree that Director Comey was facing a revolt or that his agents would have leaked the information.

Read Comey's report that kicked this whole thing off: https://assets.documentcloud.org/docume ... Letter.pdf

Although the FBI cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant, and I cannot predicct how long it will take us to complete this additional work, I believe it is important to update your Committees about our efforts in light of my previous testimony


He hasn't read the emails at all. No one has. Comey is beginning to look into them, and this contradicted his July claim that "He's done with Clinton". Soooo... he's not done, because new evidence may be available.

Consider this: The IRS agents have yet to leak anything on Donald Trump's tax returns (the only leaks are the New Jersey taxes that he filed from 20 years ago. Not related to the IRS). I do have to congratulate the IRS and their agents on being tight-lipped this entire year. Just because there's political will to leak things doesn't mean the individual agents will do so.

Liri wrote:I voted on Tuesday. I was the 6931st or something at my polling station. It does feel good to have it out of the way.

The BBC had an article on low voter turnout in the US. They interviewed one young woman who said she wasn't voting because she didn't know enough about the candidates' positions, rather than learning more about them...

I would be mortified giving an answer like that. What a stupidly lazy route to take.

Edit: Here's the article.


The main reason I haven't voted yet (despite early voting being available) is that I have no fucking idea how to answer my local county-level questions. Who gives a shit if laws need 30 day waiting period under $75,000 or something?

Uggghhhhh... need more research into my local issues...
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby trpmb6 » Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:19 pm UTC

That abc wash post tracking pool went from clinton +12 to Clinton +1. (Does not include FBI stuff)

http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-conten ... ingNo8.pdf

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby trpmb6 » Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:28 pm UTC

Allegedly, Huma does not know how the emails got on Weiner's laptop. To make matters worse for her, she made a sworn statement saying she had turned over all devices.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sun Oct 30, 2016 2:41 pm UTC

$10 says that they are the mass emails Hillary Clinton sends out as part of her campaign.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

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 » Sun Oct 30, 2016 3:05 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:Allegedly, Huma does not know how the emails got on Weiner's laptop. To make matters worse for her, she made a sworn statement saying she had turned over all devices.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html
She used her husband's laptop to print emails once and forgot about it. Scandalous!
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Sun Oct 30, 2016 3:08 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:$10 says that they are the mass emails Hillary Clinton sends out as part of her campaign.

Based on reports of how it got there, it's pretty much a grabbag of everything Clinton wanted to read on paper (by printing emails, which can only be done by sending it to Huma private email, which a portion leads to Weiner's phone), which covers everything from supersecret classified emails, to hey this donor wants some attention.

She used her husband's laptop to print emails once and forgot about it. Scandalous!
That makes it even better for the Republicans, it reinforces the narrative that Clinton by extension is careless because she's above the rules. A trait, commonly shared with the ultra wealthy.

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 » Sun Oct 30, 2016 3:15 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Thesh wrote:$10 says that they are the mass emails Hillary Clinton sends out as part of her campaign.

Based on reports of how it got there, it's pretty much a grabbag of everything Clinton wanted to read on paper (by printing emails, which can only be done by sending it to Huma private email, which a portion leads to Weiner's phone), which covers everything from supersecret classified emails, to hey this donor wants some attention.
The fact that they're stored on the laptop's HDD suggests that she a logged into mail client (Thunderbird, or Mail.app, or something) and it took a snapshot of whatever was in her inbox at the time, as they do. If she forgot to log out, it may have kept doing that in perpetuity, but that doesn't seem likely, since Comey has confirmed that none of the messages were sent or received by Clinton.

This sounds less like perjury and more like lacking a detailed knowledge of how email clients work.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1195
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Sun Oct 30, 2016 3:38 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:Comey has confirmed that none of the messages were sent or received by Clinton.
So much for every Saturday front page story.
Well, the i actually says "Clinton rocked by new FBI probe," so until people realise the emails found mean nothing, she remains rocked ... but it wasn't a new probe, so that headline was wrong before it even got printed.

Those mass emails her campaign sends out? I get those. They haven't noticed that every character in the "first name" to which they're addressing them is a numeral.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sun Oct 30, 2016 3:50 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Thesh wrote:$10 says that they are the mass emails Hillary Clinton sends out as part of her campaign.

Based on reports of how it got there, it's pretty much a grabbag of everything Clinton wanted to read on paper (by printing emails, which can only be done by sending it to Huma private email, which a portion leads to Weiner's phone), which covers everything from supersecret classified emails, to hey this donor wants some attention.


The FBI doesn't even know what they are, because they haven't gotten a warrant to look at it yet. We don't even know if they are related to her job at the state department. We just have speculation, and absolutely no facts about what they are. Even Huma Abedin said the "tens of thousands" of emails doesn't make sense.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

morriswalters
Posts: 6899
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sun Oct 30, 2016 3:58 pm UTC

There are emails, they exist, something in them triggered the FBI's attention. That is the sum total of what is known. Abedin made a sworn statement that she had turned over everything to State. It's obvious that she hadn't. Either she was stupid or careless. Clinton's problem is not that she might be indicted, it's that she has to respond.
ahammel wrote:This sounds less like perjury and more like lacking a detailed knowledge of how email clients work.
Truer words haven't been spoken. Clinton needs to get a stenographer and start sending snail mail, assuming she doesn't lose. She is clueless as are her friends.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sun Oct 30, 2016 4:03 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:There are emails, they exist, something in them triggered the FBI's attention. That is the sum total of what is known.
morriswalters wrote: Abedin made a sworn statement that she had turned over everything to State. It's obvious that she hadn't. Either she was stupid or careless.


Your two quotes are completely inconsistent. We don't know she didn't turn everything over, we don't know she was stupid or careless, because we don't even know if these are related to her job at the state department.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5489
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun Oct 30, 2016 4:26 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:That abc wash post tracking pool went from clinton +12 to Clinton +1. (Does not include FBI stuff)

http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-conten ... ingNo8.pdf


I thought you didn't like the ABC / Washington Post poll?

The average of Real Clear Politics is still +4% Clinton. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5491.html

It looks like the race has narrowed, but I wouldn't think that the race is close by any stretch of the imagination.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 6899
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sun Oct 30, 2016 5:21 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Your two quotes are completely inconsistent. We don't know she didn't turn everything over, we don't know she was stupid or careless, because we don't even know if these are related to her job at the state department.
We can infer from Comey's statement that something suggested a connection between what was found on the laptop and the Clinton email investigation. We can also infer that he thought it important enough to disclose, even though the FBI hasn't been issued a warrant to look at the hard drives as they relate to the email investigation. With that then we can reasonably infer that either there were messages marked in some fashion as originating at State, or emails that discussed matters pertaining to State Department business. Neither of which she disclosed to State as she left. That they might be duplicates of things already seen isn't the point.

Unless she shared passwords with her husband(which in itself is careless) then we may also assume that even if she doesn't remember she did it, she did something which allowed the emails to land on the laptop. Even if the emails turn out to be duplicates they would still be covered by her sworn statement as she left State, so she has exposed herself to possible prosecution or Civil liability. Thus she was careless or stupid. That's my read of the situation. I'm open to the idea that my reasoning is flawed. If so how?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sun Oct 30, 2016 5:29 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:We can infer from Comey's statement that something suggested a connection between what was found on the laptop and the Clinton email investigation.


Someone believes there might be - all we know is they found emails belong to her and that they weren't to or from Hillary Clinton.

morriswalters wrote:We can also infer that he thought it important enough to disclose, even though the FBI hasn't been issued a warrant to look at the hard drives as they relate to the email investigation.


No, we can't. He could have chose to release it because he's a Republican and doesn't want Clinton to win.

morriswalters wrote:With that then we can reasonably infer that either there were messages marked in some fashion as originating at State, or emails that discussed matters pertaining to State Department business. Neither of which she disclosed to State as she left. That they might be duplicates of things already seen isn't the point.


No, we can't. No one with the FBI or State Department has said that these emails are related to her work at the state department at all - and they can't know how relevant they are unless they look at the emails.

You are making a lot of assumptions with very little fact.

The facts:
Anthony Wiener owned a laptop
There are emails on that laptop that may belong to his wife, Huma Abedin, who worked for Hillary Clinton at the State Department

We don't know anything more.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2468
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Sun Oct 30, 2016 6:03 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:she a logged into mail client (Thunderbird, or Mail.app, or something) and it took a snapshot of whatever was in her inbox at the time, as they do. If she forgot to log out, it may have kept doing that in perpetuity, but that doesn't seem likely, since Comey has confirmed that none of the messages were sent or received by Clinton. […]

This sounds less like perjury and more like lacking a detailed knowledge of how email clients work.

Well, doubt it would be POP3 (various advantages to have done so, but sounds like they didn't - at least not habitually) and it's probably IMAP for at least the transient devices (MAPI at a push?), maybe with versioned local caching used.

I haven't really followed the details as closely as I might, but aside from client-side manual/automatic backups of any actual downloads (including for migration across clients, if not IMAP), it sounds like many of the 'discoveries' beyond the server staches were third-party Cc: recipients and conversationalists with their half of a Inbox/Outbox chain of copies. Weiner's stuff is probably that (or forwarded mails), but I also stand to be corrected.

None of this would I blame Clinton for. She'llhave had techs to keep her connected, improve/migrate her systems periodically, deal with secure comms whilst on unsecure networks, etc. They should have done more to maintain general data security (regardless of email contents) and if they didn't fully sanitise any old disks/memory I'd be far more shocked at them. They should have done it with all.

The real 'leak' was to send/forward mails between people who might be not even be as data-savvy (or be expected to possess data-savvy techs, so much) as Hillary's department ought to have been, without some mutual understanding between the parties involved of whether the whole end-to-end (possibly multi-way) link was suitably secured, for the intended level of conversation. (If it's the equivalent of someone being handed a flamethrower for the purposes of clearing a back garden, and not telling them to avoid the undergrowth surrounding the propane tank, then one has to assess whether the untutored operator is at fault when the ngs go wrong.)

That's all adressing the first element of Data Security, which is to not let anybody else access information they shouldn't have. As a past professional in the field, I'm highly inclined to put the blame on my hypothetical opposite number(s) for not keeping it as straight as it should have been.

The second element of Data Security is to ensure you donvt lose anything you'll need for the future. I done 't know about the US, but in the UK it is exoected that (most?) government-level paperwork is archived, possibly to released 30, 50 years or more later depending upon security relevence, to document the background processes at the heart of the democratic machine. I suspect that mechanism exists in the US as well (Presidential Libraries and the Library Of Congress probably are involved at least after the confidentiality cut-off has expired). It includes scribbled notes of Prime Ministetial dissent upon pre-draft copies of international agreements and the like. But is it a process yet atuned to the sheer volume of similarly-themed electronic to-and-fro? Are the electronic platforms able to support the archival requirement? In a (hypothetical) Snapchat conversation with officials, is there any permanent record kept? Does a videoconference (whether Skype or 'direct' ISDN connection between offices) get recorded? There's a lot more sheer information for political historians of the future to have to sort through...

And then there's the hackers. They're doing akin to the Watergate break-in. Whether that information should have been kept, whether it would eventually be released, it's an act of espionage to gain access to privileged information and release it. Even if it was to 'do the investigation a favour', and signs are that it wasn't even that but pure electronic breaking and entering (or whatever it is if the homeowner has left a door unlocked or a window wide open, inadvertently).

And, for the record, nothing in the emails that I've seen even looks unexpected in necessary backchannel politics. But "Oh me yarm EMAILS!!!" is just too easy a rallying cry, to drown out "Oh me yarm MYSOGENY!!!" or whatever... Whatever. Good luck, futurepeople, in sorting the whole mess out.

morriswalters
Posts: 6899
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sun Oct 30, 2016 6:41 pm UTC

point 1
You do understand the phrase "something suggested" is weaker version of "caused someone to believe".
point 2
My starting point, is that unless it is shown otherwise, that everyone is truthful. So for me to accept that his action is totally political and that there is no connection as he has inferred, would also cause me to have to accept the fact that he is willing lie in a manner almost certainly to be disclosed. For him to publicly announce the fact that he is restarting the investigation will almost certainly mean that at some point in time those emails will become public. When that happens his credibility will be at risk if it turns out they were obscene love letters. unconnected to the email investigation.
Thesh wrote:No, we can't. No one with the FBI or State Department has said that these emails are related to her work at the state department at all - and they can't know how relevant they are unless they look at the emails.
There are two separate investigations going on. At least one unit of the FBI has seen those emails, those involved in the Wiener investigation. I believe that they have had the devices since October 3 IIRC. And they had to be the one's who took it up the chain of command to Comey. What they saw is open to discussion, but that they saw something which tripped alarms for them shouldn't be in question. If the information is compartmentalized, then Comey himself mightn't have seen it.
Soupspoon wrote:And, for the record, nothing in the emails that I've seen even looks unexpected in necessary backchannel politics. But "Oh me yarm EMAILS!!!" is just too easy a rallying cry, to drown out "Oh me yarm MYSOGENY!!!" or whatever... Whatever. Good luck, futurepeople, in sorting the whole mess out.
Having sat through the Bill and Hillary show for eight years during his Presidency I share with you that this is the norm, not the exception.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sun Oct 30, 2016 6:56 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:You do understand the phrase "something suggested" is weaker version of "caused someone to believe".


Sure, do you understand that's not what I said? I said "Someone believes there might be a link" - it's the difference between "We have found evidence suggesting the existence of a single all-powerful God" and "Someone believes there might be a God".

morriswalters wrote:My starting point, is that unless it is shown otherwise, that everyone is truthful.


Am I missing something? Because that's trivially false, especially for a politician.

morriswalters wrote:So for me to accept that his action is totally political and that there is no connection as he has inferred, would also cause me to have to accept the fact that he is willing lie in a manner almost certainly to be disclosed.


He didn't technically lie, he chose to omit any detail that might lessen the impact of the story. That's how politicians lie.

morriswalters wrote:There are two separate investigations going on. At least one unit of the FBI has seen those emails, those involved in the Wiener investigation. I believe that they have had the devices since October 3 IIRC. And they had to be the one's who took it up the chain of command to Comey. What they saw is open to discussion, but that they saw something which tripped alarms for them shouldn't be in question. If the information is compartmentalized, then Comey himself mightn't have seen it.


The first rule of working in Government or a large corporation is cover your ass. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that they knew what they were looking at, or had familiarity with any details of the email case. All we know is that whoever is in charge of that investigation now knows they aren't going to get chewed out. All it takes for something to require CYA is if there is a perceived possibility that doing nothing will cost you your job.

EDIT: Also, now there is this:

The FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server knew early this month that messages recovered in a separate probe might be germane to their case, but they waited weeks before briefing the FBI director, according to people familiar with the case....Given that the Clinton email team knew for weeks that it may have cause to resume its work, it is unclear why investigators did not tell Comey sooner.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/na ... story.html

Seriously, everything about this story points to the emails being absolutely nothing, but that it was timed specifically to be released at the point in the election where it is just enough time for it to affect the election, but not enough to recover.
Last edited by Thesh on Sun Oct 30, 2016 7:24 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

morriswalters
Posts: 6899
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Sun Oct 30, 2016 7:23 pm UTC

I used suggested since I have no reason to think that they held an opinion strongly one way or the other. If they were covering their ass, overselling is as bad as underselling. But something triggered the CYA instinct.

As to the rest, you have your starting points and I have mine. If you choose to believe that politicians lie whenever they open their mouths, have fun with it. I accept the possibility, but I ain't married to it. Because taken at face value it explains why the right hates Clinton. The believe that when she speaks, she lies.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sun Oct 30, 2016 7:40 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:If you choose to believe that politicians lie whenever they open their mouths, have fun with it.


Again, that's not what I said. You assume everyone is honest - I know that everyone sometimes lies. If you are going to infer something from the facts, you cannot rule out inconvenient facts to do so. So in this case, I take into account that Republicans have spent the last 30 years investigating the Clintons, found absolutely nothing, and now they say they have something that the FBI has a bunch of emails from an aide, but haven't looked at them - so until someone is saying otherwise in an official capacity, we cannot make any assumptions or inferences beyond "There is a laptop with emails on it relating to Clinton's former aide at the State Department, which might have something to do with Hillary Clinton, but may not."
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

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 » Sun Oct 30, 2016 7:42 pm UTC

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how ... the-polls/

538 steps on to remind us that October surprises rarely move the polls very much. Most people have made up their minds already. Hell, plenty of people have voted already.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

Mutex
Posts: 1042
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mutex » Sun Oct 30, 2016 7:47 pm UTC

The FBI agents investigating Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server knew early this month that messages recovered in a separate probe might be germane to their case, but they waited weeks before briefing the FBI director, according to people familiar with the case....Given that the Clinton email team knew for weeks that it may have cause to resume its work, it is unclear why investigators did not tell Comey sooner.


ahammel wrote:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-do-october-surprises-move-the-polls/

538 steps on to remind us that October surprises rarely move the polls very much. Most people have made up their minds already. Hell, plenty of people have voted already.


So, if the investigators had told Comey sooner, there's MORE chance it would have affected the election?

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 » Sun Oct 30, 2016 7:54 pm UTC

If the story had broken any earlier it would have been entirely forgotten by election day.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Sun Oct 30, 2016 8:00 pm UTC

Maybe so.

In the end, it might just move a few more reluctant Republicans to Trump, while not diminishing Clinton's vote (which has been happening steadily already).

The instantaneous damage it did though is still really aggravating.
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

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 » Sun Oct 30, 2016 8:01 pm UTC

My baseless guess is that it will move the polls maybe a point if Trump is lucky. He's currently losing by ~5.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Sun Oct 30, 2016 8:07 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:
ahammel wrote:http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-do-october-surprises-move-the-polls/

538 steps on to remind us that October surprises rarely move the polls very much. Most people have made up their minds already. Hell, plenty of people have voted already.


So, if the investigators had told Comey sooner, there's MORE chance it would have affected the election?


I don't think so; not in this case. Most "October Surprises" aren't very surprising, so they don't move the polls much, especially since most people have decided. But being that these polls were already moving, meaning people still haven't made up their minds at this point, I think there is a lot more room for it to harm Clinton. Being that the election isn't much over a week away, if the media keeps this in the headlines until then, I think it could cost her the elections. I think people will get bored of the story by then, but it will still hurt her - that said, I still think she will win, but it could cost her a couple percentage points.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 917
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:43 am UTC

A couple fans are holding up a big "Hillary for Prison" banner behind the Fox Sports commentators at the World Series tonight. (On a related note, is there no sports sub-forum here?)
He wondered could you eat the mushrooms, would you die, do you care.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5649
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Diadem » Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:03 am UTC

This is how Gary Johson defends his lack of foreign knowledge:
"You know what, the fact that somebody can dot the i’s and cross the t’s on a foreign leader or a geographic location then allows them to put our military in harm’s way"
[long bit about how terrible war is and how soldiers suffer from something called PSD]
"We wonder why our men and service women suffer from PSD in the first place. It's because we elect people who can dot the i's and cross the t's on these names and geographic locations"

So, turns out, Trump is not the craziest candidate in this race.
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
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby trpmb6 » Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:09 am UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:That abc wash post tracking pool went from clinton +12 to Clinton +1. (Does not include FBI stuff)

http://www.langerresearch.com/wp-conten ... ingNo8.pdf


I thought you didn't like the ABC / Washington Post poll?

The average of Real Clear Politics is still +4% Clinton. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -5491.html

It looks like the race has narrowed, but I wouldn't think that the race is close by any stretch of the imagination.



I still don't like this poll. I pointed it out back then for a reason and now for a reason. Volatility in a poll is bad. We are talking about 11 points in a week. That is absurd by any election standard.

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 » Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:17 am UTC

Liri wrote:A couple fans are holding up a big "Hillary for Prison" banner behind the Fox Sports commentators at the World Series tonight. (On a related note, is there no sports sub-forum here?)
Nope, but there are some threads in N&A.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 5804
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Oct 31, 2016 4:21 am UTC

ahammel wrote:
Liri wrote:A couple fans are holding up a big "Hillary for Prison" banner behind the Fox Sports commentators at the World Series tonight. (On a related note, is there no sports sub-forum here?)
Nope, but there are some threads in N&A.

For what it's worth, Trump has a better chance of becoming president than the cubs do of winning the world series. Scratch that, with their game 5 win, the Cubs and Trump have an equal chance of winning it all.

Back On topic. 538 just noted something that their model doesn't account for. Early voting.* If you have one candidate far ahead, and then news appears which crashes the candidate's polls, early voters aren't allowed to change their minds. Trump had that happen during the South Carolina primary, he still won because people voted early before they realized how awful he was. The error is small right now, but it grows bigger every day.

*The model assumes that nobody votes early, so if the South Carolina scenario happens again, the person affect gets slightly more votes than expected.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 2468
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:03 pm UTC

I wonder if there's any polling going on about whether a breaking news item (or the expectation of one) discourages potential early voters who want to make sure or encourages those who want to be able to say they voted that way before something horrible happened that they wouldn't want to admit to supporting...

(The trouble being the necessary self-reporting biases and retelling of a scenario. You'd probably need a cohort, get them to report their current feelings all along the process, and the point at which they post/cast their vote.)

Apart from postal votes, UK voting is basically on-the-day (7am to 10pm?) and mainstream media cuts off pretty much anything political for the day, by convention, so if it hasn't been added to the equation by the night before (and due to purdah, that's mostly direct campaigning or its fallout, not directly government department 'business' popping up at the last minute) the polling-day atmsphere is far less volatile.

Obviously the US is more complex. Maybe needlessly so, in parts, but it still is.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 272
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby trpmb6 » Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:22 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:I wonder if there's any polling going on about whether a breaking news item (or the expectation of one) discourages potential early voters who want to make sure or encourages those who want to be able to say they voted that way before something horrible happened that they wouldn't want to admit to supporting...

(The trouble being the necessary self-reporting biases and retelling of a scenario. You'd probably need a cohort, get them to report their current feelings all along the process, and the point at which they post/cast their vote.)

Apart from postal votes, UK voting is basically on-the-day (7am to 10pm?) and mainstream media cuts off pretty much anything political for the day, by convention, so if it hasn't been added to the equation by the night before (and due to purdah, that's mostly direct campaigning or its fallout, not directly government department 'business' popping up at the last minute) the polling-day atmsphere is far less volatile.

Obviously the US is more complex. Maybe needlessly so, in parts, but it still is.


I've sometimes wondered about the politics of allowing early voting in the states. Democrats always lead in early voting, perhaps because it is a more modern fixture in our elections; Republicans tend to be older and thus it is reasonable to assume they prefer to vote the same way they have for decades now. But on the other hand, you want to increase voter turnout. So any sort of discussion about getting rid of early voting would simply be branded as voter suppression. It's one of those things that, once it was started you can never go back.

Trebla
Posts: 356
Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2010 1:51 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Trebla » Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:30 pm UTC

Liri wrote:The BBC had an article on low voter turnout in the US. They interviewed one young woman who said she wasn't voting because she didn't know enough about the candidates' positions, rather than learning more about them...

I would be mortified giving an answer like that. What a stupidly lazy route to take.


When I was younger, I didn't vote (I do now... this election at least) and may have given an excuse like that as to the reason, but that was primarily my lack of understanding or ability to articulate why I wasn't (as I learned more, I realized it was basically "selfish rationale for voting"... "every vote is a wasted vote" type of thing). Especially with this election, it's hard not to know at least the high level bullet points of the big two, so it strikes me as something similar. She "doesn't want to" or "doesn't like either" but made the excuse of "doesn't know." I still hold this philosophy, but the stakes of a Trump presidency seem so dire as to warrant wasting my vote by... voting.

User avatar
Yakk
Poster with most posts but no title.
Posts: 11045
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2007 7:27 pm UTC
Location: E pur si muove

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Yakk » Mon Oct 31, 2016 1:50 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:I've sometimes wondered about the politics of allowing early voting in the states. Democrats always lead in early voting, perhaps because it is a more modern fixture in our elections; Republicans tend to be older and thus it is reasonable to assume they prefer to vote the same way they have for decades now. But on the other hand, you want to increase voter turnout. So any sort of discussion about getting rid of early voting would simply be branded as voter suppression. It's one of those things that, once it was started you can never go back.

The working poor often early vote, because the US doesn't have mandated free time the day of.

Minorities who feel oppressed tend to early vote, due to voter suppression fears. If you are challenged on whatever new way someone has crafted to prevent you from voting this year, if you vote early and fail to succeed you can come back the next day. If you do so the day of the election, tough luck, the voter suppression worked.

People with good jobs tend to feel secure in being able to get off in time to vote. People for whom the voter suppression laws are crafted to let vote are confident they'll be allowed to vote even if they forgot their driver's license that day and only have their concealed carry permit with them.
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.

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 » Mon Oct 31, 2016 2:24 pm UTC

Tump claims that HRC will settle 650 million refugees in a single week, tripling the population of the USA, apparently in an attempt to prove that there is no lie he can tell that is so obvious that it will cost him votes. For those of you playing along at home, that's about 30 times the population of Syria, and ten times the current refugee population of the entire world.

Presidential candidates have certainly accused their opponents of some unlikely things before, but I'm struggling to think of anything on a comparable level of bullshit. Sure, LBJ suggested that Goldwater would start a nuclear war with the USSR, but this is like saying that he'd start a nuclear war with the moon.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

GodShapedBullet
Posts: 686
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 7:59 pm UTC
Location: Delaware
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby GodShapedBullet » Mon Oct 31, 2016 2:28 pm UTC

I don't know if I would be as opposed to a nuclear war with the moon.

They can't retaliate, there should be no human casualties, and we are far enough away that we probably won't even need to worry about fallout.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 7501
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zohar » Mon Oct 31, 2016 3:00 pm UTC

Unless a warhead malfunctions and explodes in the atmosphere. I would certainly be worried about that. It's one of the main reasons we don't just launch our nuclear waste into space, I believe.
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
CorruptUser
Posts: 8731
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Oct 31, 2016 3:14 pm UTC

That and nuclear waste is more than just spent fuel, it's also the contaminated parts that have to be locked away. Really, the best place for that stuff is in an abandoned coal mine...


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Deva, DJGreen, Mutex, ObsessoMom and 24 guests