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
CorruptUser
Posts: 9921
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Dec 20, 2016 6:13 am UTC

trpmb6 wrote:Lets face it. Hillary lost because she surrounded herself with lots of "yesmen" (pardon the misogynistic term)


Offtopic, but I sometimes wonder if we should have had a fight to bring back the archaic word "were" for "male human", and then returned "man" to its original role as the gender neutral term.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11020
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Dec 20, 2016 3:12 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:Lets face it. Hillary lost because she surrounded herself with lots of "yesmen" (pardon the misogynistic term)


Offtopic, but I sometimes wonder if we should have had a fight to bring back the archaic word "were" for "male human", and then returned "man" to its original role as the gender neutral term.


It'd be difficult, I think. Likely as difficult as inventing a new term out of whole cloth, given how little traction "were" has in the modern vernacular.

But anyways, back on track, yes-men are an issue, to be sure. Not an issue specific to Clinton, I'd wager. Trump seems equally vulnerable to encouraging underlings to back whatever he says. So, while sure, Clinton could have maybe gotten an edge there, I don't think it's a good explanation of why she lost. Or at least, not a sufficient explanation.

I'm not surprised that the elector strategy didn't go anywhere. It was always a desperation idea. Little different than late-primary Sanders ideas floated. At a certain point, the outcome becomes inevitable.

The not running candidates is a fundamental failing, though. Not running anyone at all makes it a foregone conclusion. You don't press the opposition, potentially benefitting from errors, you don't build political expertise, you don't benefit from debates, etc to earn airtime for your views...even a somewhat weak candidate is better than no candidate, I think. Sure, sure, you'd obviously rather have the strong candidate to win the hard fight, but given suboptimal choices, no candidate seems like it'd rarely be ideal.

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

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby PeteP » Tue Dec 20, 2016 6:39 pm UTC

http://schoenberg.com/Clinton/search%20warrant.pdf If anyone is curious they published the search warrant for the last short lived email episode.

User avatar
Felstaff
Occam's Taser
Posts: 5161
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 7:10 pm UTC
Location: ¢ ₪ ¿ ¶ § ∴ ® © ™ ؟ ¡ ‽ æ Þ ° ₰ ₤ ಡಢ

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Felstaff » Tue Dec 20, 2016 7:40 pm UTC

Is 16 Mag 7063 the date the warrant expires?
Away, you scullion! you rampallion! You fustilarian! I'll tickle your catastrophe.

User avatar
WibblyWobbly
Can't Get No
Posts: 506
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2013 1:03 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby WibblyWobbly » Tue Dec 20, 2016 8:14 pm UTC

Felstaff wrote:Is 16 Mag 7063 the date the warrant expires?

On 17 Mag, they're going to declare they still didn't find anything. That night, I'm getting hyper-wasted on future-booze.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9921
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Dec 20, 2016 8:35 pm UTC

WibblyWobbly wrote:
Felstaff wrote:Is 16 Mag 7063 the date the warrant expires?

On 17 Mag, they're going to declare they still didn't find anything. That night, I'm getting hyper-wasted on future-booze.


Booze? No, in the future we will skip the whole biology stuff and just have electrical impulses directly trigger dopamine releases from our brains.

Assuming we still have brains in the future, rather than computer chips. It's not like we have too many people with brains now.

elasto
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Tue Dec 20, 2016 11:03 pm UTC

The actor Tom Arnold has claimed to have video of Donald Trump using racist language, obscenities and denigrating his own son in outtakes of The Apprentice.

“I have the outtakes to The Apprentice where he says every bad thing ever, every offensive, racist thing ever. It was him sitting in that chair saying the N-word, saying the C-word, calling his son a retard, just being so mean to his own children,” Arnold told Seattle-based radio station KIRO.

The actor and comedian said a contact from the reality TV show passed him the material before last month’s election, but he did not release it because of a confidentiality clause and the expectation that Trump would lose.

“[When] the people sent it to me, it was funny. Hundreds of people have seen these. It was sort of a Christmas video they put together. He wasn’t going to be president of the United States.”

Arnold said that the Sunday before the election Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Hollywood agent asked him to release the material on behalf of Hillary Clinton.

“I get a call from Arnold’s CAA agent, sitting next to Hillary Clinton. They said, ‘I need you to release him saying the N-word.’ I said, ‘Well, now these people – two editors and an associate producer — are scared to death. They’re scared of his people, they’re scared of they’ll never work again, there’s a $5m confidentiality agreement.”

Assuming this is true, I wonder if releasing it would have cost Trump the election. You'd think surely it would have but you'd have thought pussygate would have too.

link

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 Dec 21, 2016 2:20 am UTC

I still want to see it. Maybe it'll be released January 19th. Get his term off on the right foot.
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
Isaac Hill
Systems Analyst????
Posts: 519
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Middletown, RI

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Isaac Hill » Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:10 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Offtopic, but I sometimes wonder if we should have had a fight to bring back the archaic word "were" for "male human", and then returned "man" to its original role as the gender neutral term.
But people know the term "were" as part of werewolf, a gender neutral word. It'd be easier to leave "man" gendered and use "were" as neutral. I saw a clip of Trump (hey, look, we're on topic) boasting about being named Time's "Person of the Year", and saying he thought "Man of the Year" sounded better. There's probably some sexism behind him saying that. But, the shorter word does roll of the tongue a little easier. Clearly, Time needs to change their declaration to "Were of the Year".


Clinton' campaign had to be pretty poor to turn a 2.8 million popular vote lead into a 70 vote electoral loss. If your candidate appeals to that many more people than your opposition, and you manage to lose Wisconsin and Pennselvania, which hadn't voted Republican in decades, you've allocated resources badly. As trpbm6 noted, she never visited Wisonsin after becoming the nominee. This, even though she lost that primary to a loud guy with weird hair complaining about the system being rigged.

That's not to say that I think Sanders would've won the general. He beat Clinton in the Wisconsin and Michigan primaries, and Trump's margins in those states were only around 10k each, so Sanders might've won those. But, it wouldn't have been enough.

Before the election, pollsters were saying Trump would have to flip a certain list of battelground states he was trailing in to win. So, he spent the last couple weeks holding rallies in those states and won them. Maybe Clinton saw so many paths to 270 that she never committed to any of them, while Trump saw only one, so he knew to put his full energy behind it.
Alleged "poems"
that don't follow a rhyme scheme
are not poetry

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6251
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:43 am UTC

Isaac Hill wrote:Clinton' campaign had to be pretty poor to turn a 2.8 million popular vote lead into a 70 vote electoral loss. If your candidate appeals to that many more people than your opposition, and you manage to lose Wisconsin and Pennselvania, which hadn't voted Republican in decades, you've allocated resources badly. As trpbm6 noted, she never visited Wisonsin after becoming the nominee. This, even though she lost that primary to a loud guy with weird hair complaining about the system being rigged.

That's not to say that I think Sanders would've won the general. He beat Clinton in the Wisconsin and Michigan primaries, and Trump's margins in those states were only around 10k each, so Sanders might've won those. But, it wouldn't have been enough.

Before the election, pollsters were saying Trump would have to flip a certain list of battelground states he was trailing in to win. So, he spent the last couple weeks holding rallies in those states and won them. Maybe Clinton saw so many paths to 270 that she never committed to any of them, while Trump saw only one, so he knew to put his full energy behind it.

You're bad at electoral math. You literally have hindsight 20/20 in order to construct a compelling narrative that criticized Clinton, and can still match the data that was presented. You have one true point, Clinton misallocated resources. Everything else you wrote fundamentally misunderstands the modern US electoral system. The "paths" to 270 aren't independent variables. States A doesn't flip heads just because state B flips heads. This is especially true given larger numbers of states. If Clinton loses 1 state, she's going to lose them all.* That makes me question if you even understand why Clinton misallocated resources in the first place.

*More accurately, all states are correlated, but to varying degrees. If an eastern swing state votes redder than normal, there's a good chance that every swing state is going to vote redder than normal. That's what correlation means.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9921
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:34 am UTC

Isaac Hill wrote:Clinton' campaign had to be pretty poor to turn a 2.8 million popular vote lead into a 70 vote electoral loss.


With the exception of California, Trump won the popular vote by 1.5 million votes. That's why.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6251
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:03 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Isaac Hill wrote:Clinton' campaign had to be pretty poor to turn a 2.8 million popular vote lead into a 70 vote electoral loss.


With the exception of California, Trump won the popular vote by 1.5 million votes. That's why.

You could at least only count swing states instead of taking out california without texas.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6099
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Wed Dec 21, 2016 6:06 am UTC

Trump didn't win a large enough margin in Texas for that to matter.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6251
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 21, 2016 12:03 pm UTC

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the ... ravaganza/
Let's figure out who the most powerful people are in 2017 in the US.
micah: OK, so, my team:

Donald Trump
Mitch McConnell
John Roberts
Bernie Sanders
Kellyanne Conway
Heidi Heitkamp
That’s by far the best team.

harry: I got:

Cory Booker
Anthony Kennedy
Tom Perez
Jerry Brown
Nancy Pelosi
Reince Priebus
I’ll take my check in the mail.

natesilver: I’ve got:

President Obama
Paul Ryan
Rex Tillerson
Ivanka TRUMP
Elizabeth Warren
Steven Mnuchin
clare.malone: My team is:

A Wet Rag Stuffed Into a Tailpipe
Jeff Sessions
Steve Bannon
John McCain
Chuck Schumer
Joe Manchin
harry: I’m the Indians in the movie “Major League.”

clare.malone: Readers, judge who wins.

natesilver: Harry, your team couldn’t win a shuffleboard tournament.

micah: My team is clearly the best. Then Clare. Then Nate. Then a set of six people randomly picked from the phone book. Then Harry.

clare.malone: Switch the first two and then I think you’re right, Micah.

harry: Just you wait and see. (Side note: I really shouldn’t be allowed to ever be the general manager of any team.)

I agree that Ivanka is a trash pick. She's not aligned with the Republicans party, and all she really does is cash in her name to make money. I'm bearish on Paul Ryan. He's the third most powerful role, but he's pretty spineless. Like McConnell is everything Ryan is, but ruthless.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11020
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:41 pm UTC

Ivanka's an odd pick.

One thing that stands out is that it looks like they tried pretty hard to squeeze a bunch of Democrats in there, but generally, they seem like awful picks. Bernie Sanders? Really? Yeah, he was influential in 2016, but that's already tanked hard, and he's unlikely to become more influential under Trump.

Likewise, Heidi Heitkamp is only relevant because of the pipeline issue. Relevant now, sure. But it's a cinch that she'll be less relevant as that issue rolls up. And it's unlikely that Trump's inauguration is going to bode well for that. In the end, she's a junior senator in a state without a lot of historical pull. Not even a safe seat, either. She *barely* won, and I'd put money on her losing her seat in 2018. She's a *horrible* pick.

It's interesting, because it's a window into each of their biases, but there's a number of sketchy picks there. Brown? Ehhhh. Decently powerful, sure. But not ranked anywhere near that high.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9917
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby addams » Wed Dec 21, 2016 1:51 pm UTC

Liri wrote:I still want to see it. Maybe it'll be released January 19th. Get his term off on the right foot.
Yes. I want to see it, too.
I don't want to watch it alone.

I want some one to hold my hand.
This, Children, is very scary shit.

Mrs. Hillary Clinton did Not lose that election,
Anymore than Mr. Al Gore lost the one in 2000.

The Mainstream Media is that Orange JackAss's lapdog.
He is the lapdog of every sycophant that's close to him.

There is a Chinese curse;"May you live in interesting times."
We, USAains are a cursed people living in a cursed country.

Do you remember the nun that said, "If you are not outraged you are not paying attention."
If she were making quips today she's say, "If you are not Terrified, you are not paying attention."

The very Best thing that could happen to the US under a Trump presidency is we finish losing
any self respect we might have as we finish losing all respect any other nation may have had for us.
Spoiler:
You may make the case, 'We are Powerfull.
I'd return with, "Fear and Respect are two very different things".

I will, just, call a Godwin on myself.
That saves you the time and effort.
Turning our milatay against The World does not earn us respect.
Cheney had won and could call it "Mission Accomplished" in 2006.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_f ... an_Century
The Project for the New American Century ceased to function in 2006;
PNAC fellow Reuel Marc Gerecht stated:

"We have no choice but to re-instill in our foes and friends the fear that attaches to any great power.... Only a war against Saddam Hussein will decisively restore the awe that protects American interests abroad and citizens at home".[54]


Here we are Ten Years later.
(Fuck) I hate politics.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6251
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:24 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Ivanka's an odd pick.

One thing that stands out is that it looks like they tried pretty hard to squeeze a bunch of Democrats in there, but generally, they seem like awful picks. Bernie Sanders? Really? Yeah, he was influential in 2016, but that's already tanked hard, and he's unlikely to become more influential under Trump.

Likewise, Heidi Heitkamp is only relevant because of the pipeline issue. Relevant now, sure. But it's a cinch that she'll be less relevant as that issue rolls up. And it's unlikely that Trump's inauguration is going to bode well for that. In the end, she's a junior senator in a state without a lot of historical pull. Not even a safe seat, either. She *barely* won, and I'd put money on her losing her seat in 2018. She's a *horrible* pick.

It's interesting, because it's a window into each of their biases, but there's a number of sketchy picks there. Brown? Ehhhh. Decently powerful, sure. But not ranked anywhere near that high.

The top one picks are obvious, but I can see why they went with large state governors. Texas and California have big impacts on the whole country. But reince priebus is so overrated. The second and third picks will have more impact that priebus.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11020
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:35 pm UTC

Would agree. I think people are too wrapped up in the idea of Trump as a lackey. I mean, sure, his cabinet will have power, but I'd pick any SC justice over Priebius any day.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6251
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:53 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Would agree. I think people are too wrapped up in the idea of Trump as a lackey. I mean, sure, his cabinet will have power, but I'd pick any SC justice over Priebius any day.

Trump is dangerous for democracy, but Republicans only see him as a rubber stamp on their favorite things. Do they recognize danger? Trump's whole organization casually and constantly offers up access in exchange for money. Is it just a shameless version of typical political corruption? Or does it Cross a line that Republicans are ignoring? I know the GOP doesn't want to show weakness, but I would hope they would address this somehow.
Democrats don't really matter... For now.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11020
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:58 pm UTC

In practice, it's no different from what's been happening endlessly. Money has long bought access, and sometimes rather more than access. Yeah, Trump's pretty shameless about it, and his style is galling, but I don't see that, at least, as a danger to democracy. Or rather, I don't see it as a new danger to democracy. Just as an old enemy we've always had.

You're correct about Democrats likely not mattering, at least with regards to the top 20 people or so, but that's a bit concerning in itself. Not specifically because of Trump, but just because the two parties often act as checks and balances against each other. Not always, and deadlock isn't quite the same as balance, but I don't trust either party quite enough to wish them without restraint by the other.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1686
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Wed Dec 21, 2016 4:45 pm UTC

Isaac Hill wrote:Time needs to change their declaration to "Were of the Year".
People would start pronouncing it like "we're" if they did that, and getting it all mixed up with Rear Of The Year (and yes, that's a 16-yr-old Charlotte Church in the diagonal stripes and blue jeans there).

How hard would it have been to get that video to LiveLeak anonymously, thereby circumventing the confidentiality thing, about six months ago?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

User avatar
Quizatzhaderac
Posts: 1530
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2008 5:28 pm UTC
Location: Space Florida

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Quizatzhaderac » Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:18 pm UTC

How about "Were of last year"?
The thing about recursion problems is that they tend to contain other recursion problems.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6251
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Wed Dec 21, 2016 9:44 pm UTC

Back on topic. I don't think Democrats have the heartlessness to be actual opposition. For one thing, their constituents don't reward stonewalling as much as the GOP. Democrats aren't fervent enough. Like if you shame them, Democrats will actually crumple. On the plus side, government will function, for the connected at least.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9921
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Dec 22, 2016 12:39 am UTC

Oh please, the Democratic party used to be far more vile and ruthless than anything that you stick on Trump. Remember Tammany Hall?

The reason the Dems can't be an opposition right now is because the Dems refuse to take a good long look at themselves and figure out what they need to do to clean house. Unless you honestly believe that Clinton was an absolute saint and every single one of her policies was handwritten by the lovechild of Theodore Roosevelt and John Maynard Keynes.

User avatar
Isaac Hill
Systems Analyst????
Posts: 519
Joined: Wed Mar 14, 2007 9:35 pm UTC
Location: Middletown, RI

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Isaac Hill » Thu Dec 22, 2016 12:45 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
Isaac Hill wrote:Clinton' campaign had to be pretty poor to turn a 2.8 million popular vote lead into a 70 vote electoral loss.


With the exception of California, Trump won the popular vote by 1.5 million votes. That's why.
But, Clinton only needed 215 of the 483 non-CA Electoral Votes (45%) to win. If she's only down in the popular vote by 1.5 million out of 100 million or so non-CA votes, that seems doable.


sardia - When I say allocating resources badly, I mean that campaign resources expended in one state aren't available for another. If Clinton spends the day campaigning in Florida, she doesn't spend that day in Wisconsin. An experienced GOTV expert sent to Colorado can't simultaneously be sent to Michigan. Money spent on ads in Ohio can't also be spent on ads in Pennsyvania. If you focus too much on making State A flip heads, you let State B flip tails.

And sure, we're looking at this with the benfit of hindsight. But, we're also looking at it without the benefit of US$1 billion worth of campaign apparatus to let us know what's happening in every state and demographic.
Alleged "poems"
that don't follow a rhyme scheme
are not poetry

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6251
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Dec 22, 2016 2:21 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Oh please, the Democratic party used to be far more vile and ruthless than anything that you stick on Trump. Remember Tammany Hall?

The reason the Dems can't be an opposition right now is because the Dems refuse to take a good long look at themselves and figure out what they need to do to clean house. Unless you honestly believe that Clinton was an absolute saint and every single one of her policies was handwritten by the lovechild of Theodore Roosevelt and John Maynard Keynes.

I also remember the the GOP was the party of Lincoln. Both of those groups who used the Republican and Democratic names are dead. That said, do you disagree on the statement "Democrats can't stonewall/delay Republicans because they collapse under public pressure." Why is introspection required to gum up the gears of governance? Filibuster does not require you to be a saint, sinner, or atheist. Yes Democrats need to reexamine themselves, but that seems tangential to blocking the Republican agenda.

@Isaac Yes I agree that Clinton misallocated resources. The rest of your post was inaccurate.
Clinton' campaign had to be pretty poor to turn a 2.8 million popular vote lead into a 70 vote electoral loss. If your candidate appeals to that many more people than your opposition, and you manage to lose Wisconsin and Pennselvania, which hadn't voted Republican in decades, you've allocated resources badly. As trpbm6 noted, she never visited Wisonsin after becoming the nominee. This, even though she lost that primary to a loud guy with weird hair complaining about the system being rigged. That's not to say that I think Sanders would've won the general. He beat Clinton in the Wisconsin and Michigan primaries, and Trump's margins in those states were only around 10k each, so Sanders might've won those. But, it wouldn't have been enough.
Before the election, pollsters were saying Trump would have to flip a certain list of battelground states he was trailing in to win. So, he spent the last couple weeks holding rallies in those states and won them. Maybe Clinton saw so many paths to 270 that she never committed to any of them, while Trump saw only one, so he knew to put his full energy behind it.
How responsible is Clinton for Democrat's coalition? She should have been smarter and picked a different group? Or did she pick the same groups that Trump did, but with a poor performance? That line is half true at best. Democrats have this issue of packing into cities for years now. It's no surprise it continues to happen. Obama won even though it happened to him in 2012. No reason to think Clinton couldn't either.
How could she allocate differently in Pennsylvania? It's not one of the Midwest states she took for granted. You also ignored that PA has been trending redder. People weren't sure if it would flip to GOP or not this year.
Finally, the idea that you'd prefer Trump's single narrow path over Clinton's many paths is mathematically flawed.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9921
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Dec 22, 2016 2:45 am UTC

sardia wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Oh please, the Democratic party used to be far more vile and ruthless than anything that you stick on Trump. Remember Tammany Hall?

The reason the Dems can't be an opposition right now is because the Dems refuse to take a good long look at themselves and figure out what they need to do to clean house. Unless you honestly believe that Clinton was an absolute saint and every single one of her policies was handwritten by the lovechild of Theodore Roosevelt and John Maynard Keynes.

I also remember the the GOP was the party of Lincoln. Both of those groups who used the Republican and Democratic names are dead. That said, do you disagree on the statement "Democrats can't stonewall/delay Republicans because they collapse under public pressure." Why is introspection required to gum up the gears of governance? Filibuster does not require you to be a saint, sinner, or atheist. Yes Democrats need to reexamine themselves, but that seems tangential to blocking the Republican agenda.


I disagree, because the Democrats have stonewalled successfully in the past under Nixon when he tried to give them virtually everything they wanted. The Democrats need a lot of introspection because Trump was the very worst major party candidate in all of the Republican's history yet the Democrats couldn't win, so they need to figure out what the hell was wrong with them that so many people thought that thing was less awful than Clinton. Answering "well it's someone else's fault as usual" is the biggest sign of narcissistic personality disorder, which is incidentally the disorder that if you look up in a modern psychiatry textbook you may find the President-Elect.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6251
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Dec 22, 2016 2:55 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
I disagree, because the Democrats have stonewalled successfully in the past under Nixon when he tried to give them virtually everything they wanted. The Democrats need a lot of introspection because Trump was the very worst major party candidate in all of the Republican's history yet the Democrats couldn't win, so they need to figure out what the hell was wrong with them that so many people thought that thing was less awful than Clinton. Answering "well it's someone else's fault as usual" is the biggest sign of narcissistic personality disorder, which is incidentally the disorder that if you look up in a modern psychiatry textbook you may find the President-Elect.

We know what Democrats could have done, ran a nonClinton, skew their economic talk to a small fraction of the country, and focused on the 2012 states.* If so much is dependent on the campaigner, Could McCain have won 2008?

*There's a what if here. If someone else ran, could they have stolen more Republican states than Democrats lost in the Midwest? That reshuffles the map, and makes Clinton's plays less arrogant.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1784
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: pew! pew! pew!

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby eran_rathan » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:11 am UTC

sardia wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
I disagree, because the Democrats have stonewalled successfully in the past under Nixon when he tried to give them virtually everything they wanted. The Democrats need a lot of introspection because Trump was the very worst major party candidate in all of the Republican's history yet the Democrats couldn't win, so they need to figure out what the hell was wrong with them that so many people thought that thing was less awful than Clinton. Answering "well it's someone else's fault as usual" is the biggest sign of narcissistic personality disorder, which is incidentally the disorder that if you look up in a modern psychiatry textbook you may find the President-Elect.


We know what Democrats could have done, ran a nonClinton Bernie Sanders, skew their economic talk to a small large fraction of the country, and focused on the 2012 states.*


fixed that for you.
"We have met the enemy, and we are they. Them? We is it. Whatever."
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9921
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:13 am UTC

McCain would've lost with any VP, and the reason wasn't because of his campaign but because the media decided behind closed doors that they would do nonstop coverage of Obama, and even without that it still would've been an uphill battle. Likewise, the media decided behind closed doors that in order to discredit the Republicans in 2016, they would do nonstop Trump trump trump Trump TRUMP, so that when he inevitably lost, Hillary could turn around and say her opponent was tainted by TRUUMP!!! It backfired. Then when the media went into damage control, it accidentally caused reverse psychology, and Murphy's law's a bitch.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6251
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:50 am UTC

eran_rathan wrote:
sardia wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:
I disagree, because the Democrats have stonewalled successfully in the past under Nixon when he tried to give them virtually everything they wanted. The Democrats need a lot of introspection because Trump was the very worst major party candidate in all of the Republican's history yet the Democrats couldn't win, so they need to figure out what the hell was wrong with them that so many people thought that thing was less awful than Clinton. Answering "well it's someone else's fault as usual" is the biggest sign of narcissistic personality disorder, which is incidentally the disorder that if you look up in a modern psychiatry textbook you may find the President-Elect.


We know what Democrats could have done, ran a nonClinton Bernie Sanders, skew their economic talk to a small large fraction of the country, and focused on the 2012 states.*


fixed that for you.

What fraction of the country's GDP is the Midwest?

CorruptUser wrote:McCain would've lost with any VP, and the reason wasn't because of his campaign but because the media decided behind closed doors that they would do nonstop coverage of Obama, and even without that it still would've been an uphill battle. Likewise, the media decided behind closed doors that in order to discredit the Republicans in 2016, they would do nonstop Trump trump trump Trump TRUMP, so that when he inevitably lost, Hillary could turn around and say her opponent was tainted by TRUUMP!!! It backfired. Then when the media went into damage control, it accidentally caused reverse psychology, and Murphy's law's a bitch.
So it's entirely the media's fault? What about the economy setting the stage? The anti-establishment wave? The white identity and fears of it's decline? The lack of personal responsibility about fake news?

You guys are too focused on blaming Clinton, but the electoral college calculations don't add up. If Bernie fights for the Midwest, you do realize that he has to win Florida and Pennsylvania too. There's a lot of problems that Democrats as a party have which can't be solved just by playing defense in the Midwest.

Trump gets ominously vague about muslims. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/21/us/po ... f=politics
“You know my plans,” Mr. Trump said to reporters who asked whether the attack on Monday, in which a Tunisian is being sought, would cause him to re-evaluate his proposals to create a Muslim registry or to stop Muslim immigration to the United States. “All along, I’ve been proven to be right. One hundred percent correct.”

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 9921
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:46 am UTC

The economy and war fatigue and Katrina was the battleground, not the players. Those were the politicians and the media, mainstream and otherwise. But even if the media had stayed 'neutral' like they are 'supposed to', Obama had a rather solid highground, though not undefeatable. After all, every Trump supporter is a closeted racist, so that means that McCain should've had an even easier time than Trump did, right?

The primary OTOH, the media was the driving force behind Obama's victory over Hillary, Operation Chaos notwithstanding.

elasto
Posts: 3477
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby elasto » Thu Dec 22, 2016 10:24 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:McCain would've lost with any VP, and the reason wasn't because of his campaign but because the media decided behind closed doors that they would do nonstop coverage of Obama, and even without that it still would've been an uphill battle. Likewise, the media decided behind closed doors that in order to discredit the Republicans in 2016, they would do nonstop Trump trump trump Trump TRUMP, so that when he inevitably lost, Hillary could turn around and say her opponent was tainted by TRUUMP!!! It backfired. Then when the media went into damage control, it accidentally caused reverse psychology, and Murphy's law's a bitch.

You realise that's basically a nutty conspiracy theory, right? Poe's law and all that so it's hard to tell..

The media didn't 'behind closed doors' agree to anything - there are too many independent agents involved for that. You really think someone wouldn't leak such a plan? There's only one thing the media as a whole has in common: The desire for ratings (which equals revenue).

Obama was more charismatic than McCain, so he got more coverage. Trump was more charismatic than Hillary, so he got more coverage. If Hitler was running he'd get more coverage than any of them.

Heck, I was in this thread posting every time Trump did something godawful. And often I'd ironically sign off with 'Trump! Trump! Trump!' - but maybe I was part of the conspiracy too?

No need to invoke a complicated conspiracy theory when it can be explained far more simply by human nature.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9917
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby addams » Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:01 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Obama was more charismatic than McCain, so he got more coverage. Trump was more charismatic than Hillary, so he got more coverage. If Hitler was running he'd get more coverage than any of them.

charismatic: exercising a compelling charm that inspires devotion in others.
((gack) The man turns my stomach. Maybe, I'm, just, not an 'Other'.)

I Blame the BabyBoomers and all the Media that coddles them.

There has never lived a more spoiled and self-involved generation.
They are a bunch of self indulgent, easily manipulated Old Farts.

They Believe and Love TV personalities.
The soap opera on TV is Real to them.

The Baby Boomers are Old!
They grow feeble in both body and mind.

Yet; They still demand a lot of attention.
They still throw around a lot of political weight.
Spoiler:
Believe it or not;
I was once a quiet patriot.
I loved my country and was proud of my people.

Today, I am ashamed to be an American.
I am disgusted with my people.
oh! oh! About Obama's charisma.
Obama could Not have been president of the USA
if Morgan Freeman had not paved the way.

Morgan Freeman Is a very charismatic personality.
He was a steady and dignified hand at the helm.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0SqH_PRfGU

Now...Now...Children...Just think of what might have been.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ch5MEJk5ZCQ
Spoiler:
Yes. I loose my sense of humor, too.
Then I think about Morgan Freeman.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3885
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Dauric » Thu Dec 22, 2016 1:15 pm UTC

elasto wrote:The media didn't 'behind closed doors' agree to anything - there are too many independent agents involved for that. You really think someone wouldn't leak such a plan? There's only one thing the media as a whole has in common: The desire for ratings (which equals revenue).

Obama was more charismatic than McCain, so he got more coverage. Trump was more charismatic than Hillary, so he got more coverage. If Hitler was running he'd get more coverage than any of them.

Heck, I was in this thread posting every time Trump did something godawful. And often I'd ironically sign off with 'Trump! Trump! Trump!' - but maybe I was part of the conspiracy too?

No need to invoke a complicated conspiracy theory when it can be explained far more simply by human nature.

This.

Firstly: Coke and Pepsi are some of the most well known properties in the world, they hardly need to continue to advertise to let people know that they exist, yet they advertise persistently across all media. Advertising 101: Keep your name being said and heard and it continues to keep your product as a viable, credible option in the minds of the consumers.

Second factor: Tabloid entertainment draws a larger audience than sober journalism. For advertisers this means that the easiest way to get their names said -and heard- is to advertise in the time slots of the most entertaining programs, not the most informative.

Third: News programs get their revenue, to pay their newscasters, reporters, journalists, etc., from advertising. The news outlets that can make news the most desirable to advertisers earn the most revenue. In order to even stay afloat in the modern "news" economic environment news outlets need to cater to the desires of the advertisers, and the advertisers want to be seen by the largest audience, and the audiences respond most favorably (in advertising terms) to controversial, exciting, -entertaining- content.

News organizations and advertisers track the number of times key words are used on Twitter and Facebook (and Twitter and Facebook are only too happy to sell that data to them). Advertisers track what sites their ads appear in and how often their ads come up to determine what avenues to your eyeballs best force-multiply their advertising dollars.

Obama's campaign had not only a charismatic candidate, but also a compelling narrative (first black president, and a presidential candidate with a (mostly) positive message). Trump steamrolled the rest of the Republicans in the primaries not so much by being smarter or better informed, but by being such a glorious train wreck that -we the people- simply couldn't look away, and continued to be such a politically colossal disaster of biblical proportions in the general that the "news" people got about Hillary was largely driven by what Trump had said. See point 1 above: If you get people talking about your name / policy position / tabloid headline du jour, it gains credibility. Even if it's being referenced negatively it doesn't matter, it only matters that it's being referenced.

There's no secret cabal of black-robed media executives picking political winners or losers. If there was one would expect a more consistent political agenda than going from Obama to Trump. The news media is financially beholden to the advertisers, and the advertisers have done a great deal of research, and continue to do a great deal of research in to what draws people's attention, which drawing attention to something is the business they are in. And like it or not, sober and reasonable journalism, like sober and reasonable politicians, simply don't draw the attention of the public the way that a charismatic personality with a good story, or an utter tabloid train-wreck on fire in a dumpster can.

The fault lies not in our (media) stars, but in ourselves.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11020
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:43 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Oh please, the Democratic party used to be far more vile and ruthless than anything that you stick on Trump. Remember Tammany Hall?

The reason the Dems can't be an opposition right now is because the Dems refuse to take a good long look at themselves and figure out what they need to do to clean house. Unless you honestly believe that Clinton was an absolute saint and every single one of her policies was handwritten by the lovechild of Theodore Roosevelt and John Maynard Keynes.


This. Every side makes mistakes. Maybe not the same mistakes(either between parties, or over time), but if you believe that the Democrats ability to feel shame is actually a weakness, well...that brings up other potential beliefs. Generally, understanding things more completely, and an ability to do more provide advantage, not disadvantage. Exceptions exist, but these imply other things are awry.

Even disregarding Trump, Democrats have been taking a beating. Trump isn't responsible for all of that, and his particularities therefore cannot be responsible for all of the Democrat losses. Sure, in any particular race, the candidates themselves do matter to some degree, but across a spread of them, individual differences are not as important, and we can address the ideologies and strategies themselves a bit more directly. Sure, you've got down-ticket effects, but those definitely don't explain everything.

Do democrats need to stonewall more? Dunno. I don't think merely stonewalling a lot more would have resulted in a significantly different composition of congress. I don't think Clinton lost because she was short on stubbornness, for instance.

sardia wrote:I also remember the the GOP was the party of Lincoln. Both of those groups who used the Republican and Democratic names are dead. That said, do you disagree on the statement "Democrats can't stonewall/delay Republicans because they collapse under public pressure." Why is introspection required to gum up the gears of governance? Filibuster does not require you to be a saint, sinner, or atheist. Yes Democrats need to reexamine themselves, but that seems tangential to blocking the Republican agenda.


Obstructionism does not, in itself, guarantee support. Sure, if you're opposing unpopular things, cheers. But if you're opposing popular things, likely not. So, sure, the Republicans endlessly dragging up The Affordable Care Act to bash it, focusing primarily on the unpopular mandate, was viable. That doesn't mean all obstructionism is.

Obstructionism is merely a strategy. If you're not using it on behalf of the mob, you remain the disconnected ivory tower elites that are hated. It's a familiar role for Democrats, sometimes, but that doesn't make it safe. Or helpful.

How responsible is Clinton for Democrat's coalition? She should have been smarter and picked a different group? Or did she pick the same groups that Trump did, but with a poor performance? That line is half true at best. Democrats have this issue of packing into cities for years now. It's no surprise it continues to happen. Obama won even though it happened to him in 2012. No reason to think Clinton couldn't either.


Part of it is merely that Clinton's a poor candidate, yes. But both can be true. Romney lost in part because he was a poor candidate, sure. He also lost because he came across as some rich, elitist, unpopular sort. That's largely why he was a poor candidate.

Obama totally did win in the cities, but he won many other areas too. Trump won a lot of areas that broke for Obama earlier. Sure, Clinton's not responsible for earlier demographic shifts, but she did fairly little to overcome weaknesses in the way that Obama did. That's one reason why she was much weaker as a candidate.

sardia wrote:We know what Democrats could have done, ran a nonClinton, skew their economic talk to a small fraction of the country, and focused on the 2012 states.* If so much is dependent on the campaigner, Could McCain have won 2008?


I mean, probably. If he was facing Clinton instead of Obama, I'd say his odds would have been much better.

Sure, most of the vote is pretty partisan and pre-determined, but even a coupla percentages this way or that can have a huge effect on the map. So, in practice, the candidate still matters.

sardia wrote:What fraction of the country's GDP is the Midwest?


Depends on how you define "Midwest". I'm gonna go with llinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, and Wisconsin. That seems most reasonable, I think, even though states like PA have similar concerns.

Approximately 20%. Which, for 12 states, is a little lower than average, but still a decent amount. If you consider how many people outside of those states have similar concerns, it becomes obvious that those voters are not easily ignored. Or at least, not wisely ignored.

That said, if we're looking at Bernie in particular...I think Bernie had some appeal in areas where Clinton didn't, sure, but I believe Bernie fans conveniently ignore other areas where Bernie was weaker. Looking at his strengths, but not his weaknesses. Bernie would have probably also lost, the campaign would merely have been different. He's a useful person to learn from, but not a savior.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5760
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Angua » Fri Dec 23, 2016 9:37 am UTC

Remember the brouhaha when Trump wanted names from the Energy department?

Same thing is now happening for Gender Equality in the State Department.

I'm sure their intentions are good and all they want is to give out extra cookies and cake to the people who work hard on this issue.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3885
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 Dec 23, 2016 10:54 am UTC

Angua wrote:Remember the brouhaha when Trump wanted names from the Energy department?

Same thing is now happening for Gender Equality in the State Department.

I'm sure their intentions are good and all they want is to give out extra cookies and cake to the people who work hard on this issue.


"One shudders to imagine what thoughts lie underneath that hair, what dreams of chronic and sustained cruelty..."

(for the Youtube impaired)
Spoiler:
Steam's Team Fortress 2 video "Meet the Pyro", where it turns out that in the Pyro's mind his flamethrower is a bubble-blowing machine and the world is candy and rainbows with the soundtrack of 'Do you Believe in Magic", where the reality is a war zone and carnage.
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
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5760
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Angua » Fri Dec 23, 2016 4:10 pm UTC

Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1686
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Sableagle » Fri Dec 23, 2016 4:56 pm UTC



On Thursday, Trump used Twitter to say the US “must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability until such time as the world comes to its senses regarding nukes”.


I went through "there aren't enough Jesus Facepalm images available" to this:

Image


I know, I know, he's not claiming either of those things but as an atheist I find it strange to be sympathising with Jesus.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests