Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

(08-23-2016, 05:11 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(08-22-2016, 07:47 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]Having abandoned the State Dept email "scandal" the Drumpfsters have shifted gears. Now they are trying to impugn Clinton insinuating that the Clinton Foundation is a portal of corruption. No doubt like all such things started by politicians there is a degree of quid quo pro going on. We'll see how far the Drumpfsters can go with this one.

Looks to me like if not a Hail Mary play certainly a 4th quarter gamble.

Or perhaps the kitchen sink is next.  They're just throwing everything they've got.

Does a witches' coven follow? (really, Wicca seems like a benign group of people).

Comment: Donald Trump is so inept at keeping together what remains of the George W. Bush coalition that this is a consequence:

(From electoral-vote.com)


Trump Is Making Red States More Competitive
While the Republican primaries were a wild ride, with a newbie beating over a dozen experienced politicians, the general election is following the usual script more closely, at least in terms of the map (see below). Not only is Hillary Clinton winning California handily and Donald Trump winning Texas with ease, but most of the other states are also polling in line with the 2012 election results. Harry Enten at FiveThirtyEight has made a scatterplot showing the current average for each state vs. the 2012 final result:


In every state that Obama won in 2016, Clinton is now leading, often by a substantial margin. But the reverse is not true: Trump is not leading in all the Romney states and in some of the states where he is leading, it is not by much. A number of polls have shown Clinton ahead in North Carolina, Georgia, and Arizona, although others have shown Trump ahead. Basically, they have become swing states that go back and forth as new polls come in. Depending on your capacity for believing very strange things, maybe even Utah and South Carolina are competitive, although we have our doubts.
The map wasn't always as stable as it is now. Consider the 1972, 1976, and 1980 electoral maps:


As you can see, there were massive shifts from 1972 to 1976 and again from 1976 to 1980. Basically, the country was far less polarized then than it is now. Currently, being on the blue team or the red team is not only about who you vote for, but reflects just about every aspect of life, from where you live to your attitude about religion. If someone showed that Democrats like basketball while Republicans like golf, it wouldn't surprise us. Actually, someone has showed this—more below. (V)
Republican Culture vs. Democratic Culture
As noted above, the divide between Republicans and Democrats goes beyond politics, and has a strong cultural element. "Meet the Press" host Chuck Todd once characterized it, symbolically, as being "Starbucks nation" versus "Chick-Fil-A country." FiveThirtyEight liked Todd's way of thinking, but they found Whole Foods versus Cracker Barrel to be a more instructive comparison.
A few years ago, UW-Madison political scientist Ken Goldstein decided that he wanted to get even more specific. Fortunately for him, he happens to live in a particularly polarized state, so it was easy to survey the cultural differences between Republicans and Democrats. Among his findings:

• Media: Republicans tend to prefer radio and the Internet; Democrats tend to favor newspapers and television
  
  
• TV Channels: Republicans like Fox News, the Golf Channel, the History Channel, the Speed Channel, ESPN and Country Music Television; Democrats like MSNBC, CNN, Comedy Central, Lifetime and Bravo. Everyone likes the Weather Channel, Nat Geo, and the Food Network, though.
  
  
• TV Shows: Republicans love "Survivor" and police procedurals; Democrats prefer "60 Minutes."
  
  
• Sports: Republicans watch golf and car racing; Democrats watch basketball and hockey; both watch football and baseball.
  

George W. Bush's campaign famously used this sort of data to guide their advertising decisions—for example, buying copious amounts of time on "CSI" and "NYPD Blue." There can be no doubt that, even if they keep it on the down low, the political parties have and use even more sophisticated data today. So, if you like Starbucks, Comedy Central, "60 Minutes," and a nice basketball game, get ready to be bombarded with Hillary Clinton ads in September and October. Meanwhile, fans of the History Channel, NCIS and NASCAR should be seeing some Trump commercials, assuming he airs any. (Z).

..................................

http://www.electoral-vote.com/#item-6

But what are the cultural etc. preferences of libertarians vs. "hardhats"?

And the complete omission of Spike TV - and BET! - is noteworthy.

My weekend projection (early morning, 8/27/2016)





New Mexico has been polled for the first time in a long time, and the state is effectively out of range for Donald Trump. I consider at least 272 electoral votes out of range a meaningful contest at this stage in a Presidential race.

8% is not close.

My criterion for "strong" is 8%, twice the margin of error.
My criterion for "weak" is 4%, basically the margin of error.

8% is effectively out of range for peeling off a state from the Other Side with normal campaigning  even at its most intense.  Donald Trump needs miracles to have a chance now.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/paul...kddqeka9k9

Paul Wolfowitz. architect of the Second Iraq War, says that he might vote for Hillary Clinton.

I would have never expected to be to the Right (on foreign policy) of any Republican nominee for President of the United States -- but I am now.

Maybe Rand Paul is right - that Hillary is a "neocon."

(08-28-2016, 10:31 AM)Anthony Wrote: [ -> ]Maybe Rand Paul is right - that Hillary is a "neocon."

Not as the word was used during the era of "Rebuilding America's Defenses."  The militaristic wing of Bush 43's coalition had faith that high tech would allow America to actively use its armed forces with assurance of victory and low casualties.  They convinced themselves they could fight 'quick victorious wars', often a dangerous habit of thinking.  They were more or less correct in a conventional war, as was demonstrated in the early days of 43's Iraq incursion.  The were absolutely wrong fighting an insurgency, as we learned in Afghanistan, Iraq and later struggles all over the Middle East.  Rebuilding America's Defenses neocon doctrine called for putting troops near the oil, that our Cold War doctrine of keeping forces in Europe was obsolete, that the new center of military and economic interest was the Middle East, and that it was in our obvious economic interest to place troops near the oil.

These neocon theories stated clearly in Rebuilding America's Defenses were put into practice in Bush 43's Iraq war, and most found the approach wanting.

Obama and Hillary are not interested in putting troops near the oil, and are not going to put boots on the ground without a clear achievable end game.  It is true that some Republicans have flip flopped totally from Bush 43's approach.  They are less militaristic than Obama and Hillary right now.  How much this is real, though, and how much is a knee jerk instinct to attack whatever position the Democrats are taking, I don't know. Other Republicans are sticking with the more traditional Republican hawk vision, though I don't know that many of them are actually advocating military adventures at this point.  Meanwhile, Obama's and Hillary's focus is on containing and deterring factions practicing terror in the West rather than on economic factors.

The neocons were originally a militaristic Republican faction.  That faction was so discredited in Bush 43's time that today's Republicans are trying to label Democrats as neocons.  In reality, Obama ran a 'cut and run' campaign against the Republican 'stay the course'.  He took the boys home with Hillary at SecState.  He has avoided returning boots to the ground since, and I've seen nothing to suggest Hillary is going to make major changes in current policy.

The whole "Democrats are neocons" thing is Big Lie at its finest.  It requires a total flip-flop of the meaning of the word neocon.

Unintended consequences. Barack Obama is above all else a realist. He may have had no grand scheme of asserting American power but he ended up doing so. His biggest objective was to capture or kill Osama bin laden, something that he could have never done had he not recognized that intel is desirable even if it is counter-intuitive. Even if he is not a chest-thumping super-patriot, he can make the right decisions that happen to look as if they came from 'Neocon Headquarters'.

The fault with the Neocons was that they latched themselves to the wrong President. People who try to force history to meet their dreams have a poor win-loss record.

(08-28-2016, 04:04 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: [ -> ]Unintended consequences. Barack Obama is above all else a realist. He may have had no grand scheme of asserting American power but he ended up doing so. His biggest objective was to capture or kill Osama bin laden, something that he could have never done had he not recognized that intel is desirable even if it is counter-intuitive. Even if he is not a chest-thumping  super-patriot, he can make the right decisions that happen to look as if they came from 'Neocon Headquarters'.

The fault with the Neocons was that they latched themselves to the wrong President. People who try to force history to meet their dreams have a poor win-loss record.

I'm not sure how much better they would have done with another president.  The objectives that were set for the Iraq incursion were incompatible with the ideal Neocon doctrine.  They would have liked to have gone in, purged the weapons of mass destruction, and got out.  They might have succeeded at that.  Big Oil wanted to stay and pump for profits.  Some idealists wanted to nation build, to turn Iraq into a modern democracy.  This meant a long term occupation.  If they didn't pay a lot more attention to keeping the people of Iraq happy than they did, an insurrection would be nigh on inevitable.  There was also enough talk -- and action in terms of building bases and the huge embassy complex -- of Iraq being a first step and further invasions would follow.  You might put blame on other factions within the Bush 43 administration for trying to stay indefinitely, but their own manifesto -- Rebuilding America's Defenses -- advocated troops near the oil.  I guess they have to take part of the blame at least for that.

No doubt Bush 43 was a poor leader.  Various factions with various agendas had control of different parts of the occupation force.  I didn't sense then and still don't believe they had a common plan.  You had State trying to win hearts and minds while the army thought a high body count of locals was the goal.  Pulling all Baathist party members out of government and education down to the lowest levels ticked of a lot of powerful locals, making the insurrection just about inevitable.  With 20 20 hindsight I think a competent Commander in Chief might do far better, perhaps even keeping the locals happy enough to avoid the insurrection.  Don't get do overs, though, in battles for hearts and minds.

Yes.  They would have had a better chance with most anyone but Bush 43.  Their doctrine was still flawed though.  High tech won't win insurrections, and I don't see how they could have avoided insurrection.

Not all Democrats are neocons.

Obama certainly isn't - especially with the way he paid ransom to Iran.

But Hillary might be able to reconcile herself to the fact that radical Islam's misogyny and homophobia are in and of themselves a casus belli.

According to most polls, Trump is ahead in AZ by about 5 points. So I would put it in the weaker color. Latest AZ poll puts Hillary ahead by 1 point.

(08-29-2016, 02:10 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]According to most polls, Trump is ahead in AZ by about 5 points. So I would put it in the weaker color. Latest AZ poll puts Hillary ahead by 1 point.

I will likely do so this coming weekend. Many polls from the weekend come out in the middle of the week, but not during the weekend. There were three questionable polls that had Clinton winning by narrow margins in Michigan and Pennsylvania and a tie. This was landline-only polling, which may have been valid ten years ago but not now. Cell-only voters now tend Democratic.

Yes, Arizona is nearly a toss-up in my estimation.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/...A_2%2CCA_1

My current prediction of the electoral vote. Hillary should be winning in a landslide, in which she might also get Georgia, Arizona and Missouri. But as a candidate who is not quite clicking with voters, and with competition from a "moderate" Libertarian team and a Green team, this may be the best she can do.

Iowa and Maine CD-2 are now projected for Trump by Real Clear Politics. I am saying they will fall back into the Democratic column.

If Trump squeaks through in Florida AND Ohio, watch either Pennsylvania or BOTH Michigan and Wisconsin or BOTH Michigan and Iowa. That is his path to victory.

lyrics Wrote:All my life I've been wastin' away
Never thought there'll be hell to pay
My heart is broken cause I've never been true
To myself or the rest of you

Never stopped just playin' it cool
The life I lived I was such a fool
Finding a world but losing my mind
It was all just a waste of time

The enemy is us, the enemy will bring you down
The enemy will make the sound that you never heard before
There's nothing you can do, not even if you wanted to
Are they really comin' after you, are we entering the storm

I remember how we'd used to be
Now my life throws away from me
So many things I did over the years
The pain I caused and all of the tears

Never stopped just playin' it cool
The life I lived I was such a fool
Finding a world but losing my mind
It was all just a waste of time

The enemy is us, the enemy will bring you down
The enemy will make the sound that you never heard before
There's nothing you can do, not even if you wanted to
Are they really comin' after you, are we entering the storm


Sealings are crazy
Cause you now laugh in fear
And they want him to make it better
But there's nobody there
All my life I've been wastin' away
Never thought there'll be hell to pay
My heart is broken cause I've never been true
To myself or the rest of you

The enemy is us, the enemy will bring you down
The enemy will make the sound that you never heard before
There's nothing you can do, not even if you wanted to
Are they really comin' after you, are we entering the storm

The enemy is us, the enemy will bring you down
The enemy will make the sound that you never heard before
There's nothing you can do, not even if you wanted to
Are they really comin' after you, are we entering the storm

The enemy is us, the enemy will bring you down
The enemy will make the sound that you never heard before
There's nothing you can do, not even if you wanted to
Are they really comin' after you, are we entering the storm

So, lay yer roulette bets now, red or black, but in the end, only the house wins.

After this critical poll of a swing state (Virginia):
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/...ginia.html

PPP's new Virginia poll finds that Hillary Clinton is still in a pretty good position in the state. In the full field she leads with 45% to 39% for Donald Trump, with Gary Johnson at 6%, Jill Stein at 2%, and Evan McMullin at 1%. In a head to head contest just against Trump, she leads 50/42.

Clinton - 45%
Trump - 39%
Johnson - 6%
Stein - 2%
McMullin - 1%

Clinton - 50%
Trump - 42%

878 likely voters surveyed between September 9th and 11th.






Hillary Clinton (D) vs. Donald Trump ®:





Tie -- white

60% or more -- saturation 8
55-59.9% -- saturation 6
50-54.9% -- saturation 5
45-49.9%, lead 8% or more -- saturation 4
45-49.9%, lead 4-7.9% -- saturation 3
45-49.9%, lead 1-3.9% -- saturation 2

Any lead with less than 45% will be considered unusable.




The three-way map:

Hillary Clinton (D) vs. Donald Trump ® vs. Gary Johnson (L):




I'm going with saturation for the raw vote for the leader. The percentage (3 for 30-39, 4 for ro-49, 5 for 50-59, 6 for 60-69...) will be the number for the saturation.

No internal number will be shown for any nominee who has at least 60% of the raw vote or has a lead of at least 8%. and at least 40% of the raw vote. Otherwise I will show

the leader by color (white for a tie), the margin for the leader, and the amount for Johnson (maybe McMullen added should he become relevant).

(and many nor so surprising)

Donald Trump is going to need a huge number of contingencies going right for him to win the Presidential election.

"We have a deeply divided body politic in America. Half the population believes our elections are broken. The other half believe they're fixed."
-- Swami Beyondananda

Ooh, I don't know if he's the right messenger for this advice!

More likely, the debates will not move opinion very much. The teams are already lined up. Those who can perceive facts and policies, and for whom making sense means something, are already for Hillary. Those who respond to bluster, fear, tough talk and spectacle are already in Drumpf's corner.

My game group spent about half an hour today before game start talking about how no one wants to talk about politics.

Here's how things looked after Hillary Clinton had the scare involving her physical health:


Hillary Clinton (D) vs. Donald Trump ®:





Tie -- white

60% or more -- saturation 8
55-59.9%        --  saturation 6
50-54.9%        --  saturation 5
45-49.9%, lead 8% or more -- saturation 4
45-49.9%, lead 4-7.9% -- saturation 3
45-49.9%, lead 1-3.9%  -- saturation 2

Any lead with less than 45% will be considered unusable.  




The three-way map:

Hillary Clinton (D) vs. Donald Trump ® vs. Gary Johnson (L):




I'm going with saturation for the raw vote for the leader. The percentage (3 for 30-39, 4 for ro-49, 5 for 50-59, 6 for 60-69...) will be the number for the saturation.

No internal number will be shown for any nominee who has at least 60% of the raw vote or has a lead of at least 8%. and at least 40% of the raw vote.  Otherwise I will show the leader by color (white for a tie), the margin for the leader, and the amount for Johnson (maybe McMullen added should he become relevant).

...and a week later:
Hillary Clinton (D) vs. Donald Trump ®:





Tie -- white

60% or more -- saturation 8
55-59.9%        --  saturation 6
50-54.9%        --  saturation 5
45-49.9%, lead 8% or more -- saturation 4
45-49.9%, lead 4-7.9% -- saturation 3
45-49.9%, lead 1-3.9%  -- saturation 2

Any lead with less than 45% will be considered unusable.   




The three-way map:

Hillary Clinton (D) vs. Donald Trump ® vs. Gary Johnson (L):