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
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:17 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:
Thesh wrote:Trump is actually going to court over rape allegations ...
... after the election.?


Oh, well, that makes all the difference. If Hillary was going to court over, let's say, emails, then it wouldn't get mentioned in the news.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:29 pm UTC

It requires an almost constant stream of negative stories about Trump to keep his numbers down. If a week goes by without anything too eyebrow-raising, everyone... forgets. It looks like even at this stage, msm wants to give the appearance of a tight race for clicks and eyeballs. :|
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:38 pm UTC

In the past, a politician would have resigned out of shame. Trump is a game-changed: He has shown that you can brazen out anything short of actual criminal charges and maintain support. Apparently there have been women seen at his rallies with handwritten t-shirts saying 'you can grab this anytime' and an arrow pointing downwards...

Thankfully he's going to lose; the real worry is what political monstrosities spawn in his wake - political figures that play his game but with ruthless Machiavellianism...
Last edited by elasto on Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:43 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:42 pm UTC

elasto wrote:In the past, a politician would have resigned out of shame. Trump is a game-changed: He has shown that you can brazen out anything short of actual criminal charges and maintain support.

Thankfully he's going to lose; the real worry is what political monstrosities spawn in his wake - political figures that play his game but with Machiavellian ruthlessness...


Eh, most presidential candidates don't resign in response to October surprises and the like. That's not new.

I wouldn't rest too easy. Clinton might have the edge, but it's still not quite a sure thing.

Liri wrote:It requires an almost constant stream of negative stories about Trump to keep his numbers down. If a week goes by without anything too eyebrow-raising, everyone... forgets. It looks like even at this stage, msm wants to give the appearance of a tight race for clicks and eyeballs. :|


Uh, Trump isn't have a popular blowout here. Your proposed explanation does not square with the facts. They do not need this particular story to portray a close race.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:44 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Eh, most presidential candidates don't resign in response to October surprises and the like. That's not new.

You think if Obama had been caught on tape saying 'I grabbed her by the pussy' he wouldn't have dropped out?

Politicians have dropped out for way, way less than that.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:51 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Uh, Trump isn't have a popular blowout here. Your proposed explanation does not square with the facts. They do not need this particular story to portray a close race.

It was absolutely in blowout territory up until a week or so ago. Arizona blue, unironic musings on Texas, vote percentage well below 45%.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:52 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Uh, Trump isn't have a popular blowout here. Your proposed explanation does not square with the facts. They do not need this particular story to portray a close race.


Clinton had a steady 6 point lead until this story broke (even though yes, polls that were taken right before when the story broke showed Hillary's lead starting to slip, most of those didn't come out until a few days after the story broke, so it is not inconsistent).
Last edited by Thesh on Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:52 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 01, 2016 5:52 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Eh, most presidential candidates don't resign in response to October surprises and the like. That's not new.

You think if Obama had been caught on tape saying 'I grabbed her by the pussy' he wouldn't have dropped out?

Politicians have dropped out for way, way less than that.


That's a misquote. And anyways, many past October Surprises have involved criminal allegations. In the end, they end up mattering surprisingly little.

Thesh wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Uh, Trump isn't have a popular blowout here. Your proposed explanation does not square with the facts. They do not need this particular story to portray a close race.


Clinton had a steady 6 point lead until this story broke (even though yes, polls that were taken right before when the story broke showed Hillary's lead starting to slip, most of those didn't come out until a few days after the story broke, so it is not inconsistent).


Right, that's the other way 'round. A "stream of negative stories to keep Trump's numbers down" does not make a close race. It makes it LESS close, if that's what you believe is happening. So, Liri's theory doesn't hold.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Nov 01, 2016 6:04 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Right, that's the other way 'round. A "stream of negative stories to keep Trump's numbers down" does not make a close race. It makes it LESS close, if that's what you believe is happening. So, Liri's theory doesn't hold.


I believe Liri said they were doing the opposite of that, pushing the headlines about the email while ignoring the Trump stuff to make the media closer. That part was referring to the fact that Trump voters just don't give a shit. I think the evidence for MSM manipulation is there, although alternate explanations exist (they could have simply they respond to clicks and a scandal involving the leading candidate gets all the press) - I think it's a mixture, with the right-wing propaganda outlets obviously intentionally misinforming the public to hype the story, the mainstream media trying to boost ratings by focusing on the front runner, and because it is Hillary Clinton and the right and, to a lesser extent, the major news outlets have obsessed over her for decades, and the public has been woefully misinformed.

I think there's also a bit of a double standard for Democrats and Republicans in general - there is an expectation that Republican politicians will be racist, sexist, assholes, who care about their own personal wealth rather than the well-being of people as a whole; so when it's a Democrat, it's a bigger deal.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 01, 2016 6:36 pm UTC

Look, all of you shouldn't conflate electoral probable totals with popular vote probable totals. Even when Clinton was gonna win by a blow out, she was at 50 percent, and Trump was at 40 percent. Even with the email re investigation, Trump has gained only 2%in the polls in the popular vote. Land slide or not, Trump's base of support isn't going away. *

Future candidates need to consider both the raw size of coalition's and where their targeted coalition resides.

*You could argue that Trump's base is actually very small and the rest is just people voting against Hillary or for babies.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:05 pm UTC

Thesh has it right.

I should've said "blowout relative to recent, increasingly partisan elections," but I figured we were all on the same page there. In 2012, Obama scraped by with a narrow popular majority, but swept it away with the college.

But hey, it's only one week away.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:19 pm UTC

Liri wrote:Thesh has it right.

I should've said "blowout relative to recent, increasingly partisan elections," but I figured we were all on the same page there. In 2012, Obama scraped by with a narrow popular majority, but swept it away with the college.

But hey, it's only one week away.

The difference matters if you're talking about future potential candidates. If Trump loses in a land slide electorally, but still gets Romney's popular vote, that means the next election should evolutionarily select for a hybrid between Rubio's pedigree, Cruz's intelligence,, and Trump's showmanship& white revanchism.

It turns out Cruz wasn't joking about blocking SCOTUS nominations. If the GOP holds the Senate, more leaders are demanding a 4 year scotus block. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ng/506081/

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:23 pm UTC

States can have recall elections for their Senators, right?
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:46 pm UTC

Liri wrote:States can have recall elections for their Senators, right?

Yes but you know they are really hard to force out. Wisconsin was as good as you could imagine, and they still couldn't force gov Walker to leave. You should only force one in a presidential or midterm(if GOP) election where turnout is high.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:47 pm UTC

I'm not sure they will block SCOTUS. Their base might love it, but it's not a popular position among everyone else. Hell, a significant chunk of Republicans wanted SCOTUS hearings back in March, and there was a bullshit justification for that - they aren't going to stand for four years of blocking nominations. I think they are hyping it now because they think it will help them with reelection this year.

Then again, it's hard to overestimate the insanity of the Republican party after the last six to eight years, and the fact that Trump has a shot is just mind boggling, so what do I know? Maybe they've gotten to the point where they would rather burn the country to the ground rather than risk the country being successful under a Democrat - maybe that's their new strategy? Since they can't win on actual social or economic arguments, they want to inflict massive hardship and blame it on Democrats. I mean, the Republican party seems to have abandoned all policies that could potentially help people, so I don't think they actually give a shit about the country anymore (they seem to have formed a religion that believes in a conceptual paradise known as "America" that they say exists but Archeologists say there is no evidence for, and which scientists say is inconsistent with either the laws of nature or human nature, and it appears that this search for "America" must take precedent over every problem in the world).
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 01, 2016 7:48 pm UTC

sardia wrote:It turns out Cruz wasn't joking about blocking SCOTUS nominations. If the GOP holds the Senate, more leaders are demanding a 4 year scotus block. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/ar ... ng/506081/


So, buckle in for four years o' Trump, or four years of more ridiculous partisanship. I mean, we had plenty, before, but four years of blocking courts? Damn.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:39 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:o, buckle in for four years o' Trump, or four years of more ridiculous partisanship. I mean, we had plenty, before, but four years of blocking courts? Damn.
I'm confused - you think these are exclusive states? Like, that Trump will be elected and suddenly the US won't be ridiculously partisan?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Nov 01, 2016 8:58 pm UTC

Hyper-partisanship will still exist, but obstruction would lessen, especially since Republicans would likely hold the majority in both House and Senate if he won. I think the Democrats would be more willing to deal on certain items with a filibuster used on major sticking points but not because there is anything unrelated they want or they just plain don't think it fits their agenda (that is, use it to prevent major changes you don't like rather than use it to force the majority to adopt the policy of the minority which is what Republicans were trying to do in 2011-2015). Democratic politicians see government as something that does good as a whole, whereas Republicans choose only to look at the bad side of government unless it is police or military, so while the Republicans may be willing to completely destroy every aspect of government they can get their constituents to support, Democrats see the socioeconomic consequences as too great of a risk.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:01 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:o, buckle in for four years o' Trump, or four years of more ridiculous partisanship. I mean, we had plenty, before, but four years of blocking courts? Damn.
I'm confused - you think these are exclusive states? Like, that Trump will be elected and suddenly the US won't be ridiculously partisan?

Tyndmyrs point is probably that if Trump wins, there's no resistance anywhere outside the bluests States. They'll have the Senate House, SCOTUS and the presidency. The only thing that Democrats will have is filibuster. Which McConnell well swiftly erase with a majority vote. If the Democrats win, scotus shifts and you get a few appointments in. Everything else stays in stasis. That's why the GOP can afford these gambles, because their long game is very very good. Democrats will stumble eventually, and then everything will be under GOP control.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:02 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:o, buckle in for four years o' Trump, or four years of more ridiculous partisanship. I mean, we had plenty, before, but four years of blocking courts? Damn.
I'm confused - you think these are exclusive states? Like, that Trump will be elected and suddenly the US won't be ridiculously partisan?


Not exclusive, exactly. But if Trump won, he'd likely have the senate and congress with him, and more state houses are red. So he'd likely experience somewhat lower obstructionism. That said, it's a cinch that the democratic senators would probably filibuster all sorts of things. Presuming you believe that the republicans won't screw them in turn on procedure changes as the democrats tried to do before. So....

Basically, the takeway is that both options lead to a rough four years. But they're not exactly rough in the same way.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:09 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Izawwlgood wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:o, buckle in for four years o' Trump, or four years of more ridiculous partisanship. I mean, we had plenty, before, but four years of blocking courts? Damn.
I'm confused - you think these are exclusive states? Like, that Trump will be elected and suddenly the US won't be ridiculously partisan?


Not exclusive, exactly. But if Trump won, he'd likely have the senate and congress with him, and more state houses are red. So he'd likely experience somewhat lower obstructionism. That said, it's a cinch that the democratic senators would probably filibuster all sorts of things. Presuming you believe that the republicans won't screw them in turn on procedure changes as the democrats tried to do before. So....

Basically, the takeway is that both options lead to a rough four years. But they're not exactly rough in the same way.

I'm surprised you think a Trump win will be a rough 4 years. Are you assuming Trump goes full Philippines Duterte on the country? Or do you expect the economy to crumble slowly from trade barriers? I'm expecting Cheney levels of incompetence and corruption and a few dumber wars. There's a low chance of a Trump escalating into world war 3 or regional xxv but that's pretty low odds.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:15 pm UTC

sardia wrote:I'm surprised you think a Trump win will be a rough 4 years. Are you assuming Trump goes full Philippines Duterte on the country? Or do you expect the economy to crumble slowly from trade barriers? I'm expecting Cheney levels of incompetence and corruption and a few dumber wars. There's a low chance of a Trump escalating into world war 3 or regional xxv but that's pretty low odds.


Just a slow drag from stupid, and having to listen to dumb, dumb speeches. It'll result in diplomatic snafus, yelling at the media, etc. Just...really tedious. There'll be a constant tension between Trump and the rest of the Republicans, because Trump can't really work as part of a team, and it'll be just endless rage and blather over stupidity.

But probably a lower chance of a government shutdown, or no nominations for four years. So, that's something, I guess.

Trump won't have the power, and is too combative to win people over, in order to pull off anything particularly crazy. But four years of him in the bully pulpit'd get awfully old.

Edit: Shit, can you imagine? He'd probably be shilling for Trump hotels in the State of the Union.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3997
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 » Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:35 pm UTC

sardia wrote:I'm surprised you think a Trump win will be a rough 4 years. Are you assuming Trump goes full Philippines Duterte on the country? Or do you expect the economy to crumble slowly from trade barriers? I'm expecting Cheney levels of incompetence and corruption and a few dumber wars. There's a low chance of a Trump escalating into world war 3 or regional xxv but that's pretty low odds.


Biggest problem of a Trump administration could be a de-emphasis on enforcement of laws that could be construed as "Anti-Corporation". EPA, OSHA, MSHAW, FDA, FTC, etc. etc. etc. all effectively ordered to sit on their hands while corporations rake in profits from near-blatant violations of laws that won't be enforced or investigated, while people who aren't "successful enough" to be counted as people In Trump's eyes suffer from lapses in workplace safety, food contamination, pollution, fiscal shenanigans, etc.
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: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:41 pm UTC

I disagree, his anti trade positions are well known, and a president would be well positioned to break trade deals without consent of Congress. I don't even think Congress's knows enough about trade deals to recognize the damage less trade does to the economy. That would rival any business corruption/rent seeking.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Nov 01, 2016 9:55 pm UTC

If Trump tried to unilaterally exit a treaty, then I would assume that the courts would step in at that point, so I'm not so much worried about that. My expectation is he would hire lawyers to find ways to abuse the laws as much as possible as well as throwing whatever wrenches he can into the system (e.g. reassigning cutting customs agents assigned to inspecting cargo or changing procedures so it takes much longer).
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6888
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby ucim » Tue Nov 01, 2016 10:48 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Trump won't have the power, and is too combative to win people over...
If elected, he will have demonstrated that he can win people over get people to submit by being combative.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Heartfelt thanks from addams and from me - you really made a difference.

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7368
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:02 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:If Trump tried to unilaterally exit a treaty, then I would assume that the courts would step in at that point, so I'm not so much worried about that.
As I recall, no President who has withdrawn or violated a treaty -- then been summarily challenged in court for it -- has ever lost their case.

Also, I believe that a President really only needs to give six months notice before withdrawing from NAFTA. It's fully within a President's power; there's no reason to expect anyone could stop them if they wanted to do it.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Nov 01, 2016 11:18 pm UTC

Okay, then Trump will likely cause a global economic depression during his year in office.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby GodShapedBullet » Wed Nov 02, 2016 12:56 am UTC

Felstaff wrote:This week's This American Life has a delightful song sung by Neil Patrick Harris about Paul Ryan's internal monologue.


Neil Patrick Harris aside, this episode was the darkest episode I've ever heard of the show.

User avatar
Xeio
Friends, Faidites, Countrymen
Posts: 5101
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2007 11:12 am UTC
Location: C:\Users\Xeio\
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Xeio » Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:47 am UTC

I'm not so sure the FBI has a leak anymore... It's more like a flood of partisan information. Even their Twitter in the mix.

Comey sure shat the bed.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:57 am UTC

Xeio wrote:I'm not so sure the FBI has a leak anymore... It's more like a flood of partisan information. Even their Twitter in the mix.

Comey sure shat the bed.

What are you talking about? Link?

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Nov 02, 2016 2:01 am UTC

http://www.vox.com/2016/11/1/13489510/f ... foundation

https://vault.fbi.gov/william-j.-clinton-foundation

https://twitter.com/fbirecordsvault

From what I've read, the FBI agents are out of control, and about half of them want to spend all their time digging up dirt on the Clintons.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Nov 02, 2016 2:45 am UTC

I love that the tweet came from an FBI twitter account that'd be unused for a year.

Man. Comey is sure playing his leanings here.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Nov 02, 2016 3:01 am UTC

I'm guessing rogue IT employee at this point - probably already fired, but they can't take it down because then Republicans would scream bloody murder.

EDIT: https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/ ... -Her-There

What in the what?

Survey by polling firm Targetsmart and William & Mary of Florida voters who have already voted shows that 28% of registered Republican voters have actually voted for Hillary Clinton. The same poll projects an 8 point win for Clinton in that state. Without Florida, Trump really has no path to an electoral college victory. If this is the size of the crossover vote in Florida, you can imagine that there might be similar numbers in other states.

This was just reported on MSNBC. Poll will be released tomorrow.


That's a ridiculously high crossover.

EDIT:

https://www.scribd.com/document/3296983 ... ely-Voters

Hillary Clinton’s strength with the early vote in Florida is propelling her to a lead in the key battleground state, according to a new poll released today by TargetSmart and William & Mary. In the poll, Clinton holds a 48 to 40 percent lead over Donald Trump in the Sunshine State, a more advantageous position for Clinton than most other publicly available polling has suggested in the last week or so.

As of the morning of November 1st, 2016, TargetSmart tracks that 3,695,359 people have already cast their votes in Florida. Leveraging TargetSmart’s proprietary voter file - that is updated daily through the early voting window - this poll reached a significant number of voters who have already participated. Among those early voters (who were asked which candidate they had voted for), Clinton outpaces Trump by a 17-point margin, 55 to 38 percent.

Reflective of the trends that have been published in other public polls in recent days, the TargetSmart/William & Mary poll shows the contest in Florida is very competitive among those who have yet to cast their ballot. Among those non-early voters (who were asked which candidate they will vote for), Clinton attracts 42 percent of the vote and 43 percent back Donald Trump.


Basically, due to the amount of early voting, I'm guessing by women, if this is accurate then Trump is finished.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 02, 2016 4:03 am UTC

Thesh wrote:I'm guessing rogue IT employee at this point - probably already fired, but they can't take it down because then Republicans would scream bloody murder.

EDIT: https://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/11/ ... -Her-There

What in the what?

Survey by polling firm Targetsmart and William & Mary of Florida voters who have already voted shows that 28% of registered Republican voters have actually voted for Hillary Clinton. The same poll projects an 8 point win for Clinton in that state. Without Florida, Trump really has no path to an electoral college victory. If this is the size of the crossover vote in Florida, you can imagine that there might be similar numbers in other states.

This was just reported on MSNBC. Poll will be released tomorrow.


That's a ridiculously high crossover.

EDIT:

https://www.scribd.com/document/3296983 ... ely-Voters

Hillary Clinton’s strength with the early vote in Florida is propelling her to a lead in the key battleground state, according to a new poll released today by TargetSmart and William & Mary. In the poll, Clinton holds a 48 to 40 percent lead over Donald Trump in the Sunshine State, a more advantageous position for Clinton than most other publicly available polling has suggested in the last week or so.

As of the morning of November 1st, 2016, TargetSmart tracks that 3,695,359 people have already cast their votes in Florida. Leveraging TargetSmart’s proprietary voter file - that is updated daily through the early voting window - this poll reached a significant number of voters who have already participated. Among those early voters (who were asked which candidate they had voted for), Clinton outpaces Trump by a 17-point margin, 55 to 38 percent.

Reflective of the trends that have been published in other public polls in recent days, the TargetSmart/William & Mary poll shows the contest in Florida is very competitive among those who have yet to cast their ballot. Among those non-early voters (who were asked which candidate they will vote for), Clinton attracts 42 percent of the vote and 43 percent back Donald Trump.


Basically, due to the amount of early voting, I'm guessing by women, if this is accurate then Trump is finished.

Look, I hate Trump too, but you should stop the inaccurate polling punditry. Early voting and party affiliation is pretty much worthless. Many "Democrats" haven't voted Democrat in decades. Just on the smell test alone, the average lead Hillary has over Trump isn't 8 points, it's like half a point.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Nov 02, 2016 4:09 am UTC

Well, that part hasn't been released yet, but if what MSNBC said was accurate, then 28 percent of people who they spoke to who identified as Republican and said they already voted, said they voted for Hillary.

Barring a major flaw in the poll that is an absolutely huge margin - normally crossover is in single digits among self-identified respondents, but it makes sense if they were women who got out and voted early at Hillary's peak.
Last edited by Thesh on Wed Nov 02, 2016 4:40 am UTC, edited 3 times in total.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Wed Nov 02, 2016 4:25 am UTC

GodShapedBullet wrote:
Felstaff wrote:This week's This American Life has a delightful song sung by Neil Patrick Harris about Paul Ryan's internal monologue.


Neil Patrick Harris aside, this episode was the darkest episode I've ever heard of the show.

You need to listen to it more. It is a super-depressing program. Even when David Sedaris is on it's grim. Note that I haven't listened to TAL in a couple years because it was bumming me out so much.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:53 pm UTC

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/201 ... id=rrpromo
Clinton's position continues to deteriorate, her population expected vote is down 1% and third parties are down to 4.7%. Trump is at 45%.
Good thing her margin was so high to begin with.

TAL is only grim because it's a eulogy for a party that isn't in control for a decade. The old fashion honorable Republican that the media runs stories about isn't dead, but they aren't usually Republicans anymore.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Nov 02, 2016 3:17 pm UTC

ucim wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Trump won't have the power, and is too combative to win people over...
If elected, he will have demonstrated that he can win people over get people to submit by being combative.

Jose


It does work fairly often, if he's in a situation where people need to deal with him. I would argue, however, that this is not a universally good strategy, and when people do not need to work with you, a hostile approach is not helpful. Congress is perfectly content to not play nice with the president, if it serves their ends. Now, it's likely that simple partisanship will result in a less hostile relationship between the two than you'd see under Clinton, but I'd be shocked if Trump didn't have the worst relationship with a same-party congress ever.

Thesh wrote:Okay, then Trump will likely cause a global economic depression during his year in office.


NAFTA's really not that huge of a deal for us. I mean, we have prior treaties that give us similar policies with regards to Canada, and anyways, Trump doesn't seem concerned about Canadians. I mean, it'd hurt, in terms of higher prices, etc, but the impact of higher tariffs with Mexico probably isn't sufficient to kick the US into a depression. It'd suck proportionately a great deal more for Mexico, so for them, yeah. But probably not the rest of the globe.

Thesh wrote:Basically, due to the amount of early voting, I'm guessing by women, if this is accurate then Trump is finished.


It's a sign, but it's not necessarily conclusive. Early voting may not be representative of the general election. Early voters skewing democrat is typical, even. I mean, that's a good turnout, but it's <4m out of 20m people, so even outta likely voters, the majority have not yet voted. This is still fairly error prone.

sardia wrote:http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo
Clinton's position continues to deteriorate, her population expected vote is down 1% and third parties are down to 4.7%. Trump is at 45%.
Good thing her margin was so high to begin with.


Welp, time to bet money on Trump winning. Not that this is a sure thing, but betting markets are undervaluing his odds, looks like.

1.6 unknown and 4.7 third party leaves a 6.3% margin that'll probably mostly split still. And the odds of Clinton getting the popular and Trump getting the Electoral just keep climbing. If that break goes a little for Trump on the general(and Johnson supporters do skew a touch republican), that outcome could become reasonably likely.

Of course, while it's fascinating from an election standpoint, the "Trump wins, but not by a majority" is probably worst case for the aftermath. The level of rage will be...high.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Nov 02, 2016 3:26 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Thesh wrote:Basically, due to the amount of early voting, I'm guessing by women, if this is accurate then Trump is finished.


It's a sign, but it's not necessarily conclusive. Early voting may not be representative of the general election. Early voters skewing democrat is typical, even. I mean, that's a good turnout, but it's <4m out of 20m people, so even outta likely voters, the majority have not yet voted. This is still fairly error prone.


Only 8.5 million people voted in Florida in 2012, so if > 3 million people Early voted before the Comey scandal broke, and they skewed heavily towards Hillary, and saw large crossover from Republican Women, then Trump cannot win Florida..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_St ... rida,_2012
Summum ius, summa iniuria.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Dauric and 21 guests