Presidential election, 2016

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-21-2016, 04:48 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Donald Trump is down to a less-than-4% chance of winning the election.

Much much higher chance of whining.

Which source is giving 4%?  538 is still around 13%.

[Eric the Green]

(10-21-2016, 04:48 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Straight Outta Lynwood .... "Bad Hombres, Nasty Women" (Ft. Weird Al). Enjoy!

That's what we need to do; autotune them!

[Eric the Green]

(10-19-2016, 07:36 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Another angle -- probability of winning (before Debate #3)



Chance of winning (saturation)

pct sat
99%+ 9
95-98.9 7
90-95 5
75-90 4
65-75 3
50-65 2

Utah (my guess) 55% McMullen

blue -- Trump,
red -- Clinton
green -- independent

I have predicted 347-191. That would mean Iowa comes around to Hillary, and Utah and Arizona stay with Trump. But I am rooting of course for UT to go McMullen and AZ to go HRC! That would be 358 to 185.

[Eric the Green]

(10-21-2016, 06:25 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(10-21-2016, 04:48 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Donald Trump is down to a less-than-4% chance of winning the election.

Much much higher chance of whining.

Which source is giving 4%?  538 is still around 13%.

I'd say that's correct, around 13-15% chance now. But Trump has a 99% chance of whining.

[Eric the Green]

[Anthony '58]

The bottom line is this: If Hillary wins all the states that Kerry won in 2004, plus Virginia, New Mexico, and Colorado - and she has a seemingly insurmountable lead in all three - she wins. She wouldn't even need to win in North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, or Nevada.

But is everyone missing something here; namely, the Bradley Effect - in this case, respondents lying to pollsters because they don't want to be seen as one of those redneck, racist "deplorables" who are backing Donald Trump? Plus Hillary is a woman, which means some voters could be hiding their Mad Men misogyny by telling pollsters they're for her when they're not.

[Einzige]

(10-22-2016, 01:40 PM)Anthony 58 Wrote: But is everyone missing something here; namely, the Bradley Effect - in this case, respondents lying to pollsters because they don't want to be seen as one of those redneck, racist "deplorables" who are backing Donald Trump? Plus Hillary is a woman, which means some voters could be hiding their Mad Men misogyny by telling pollsters they're for her when they're not.

God, you're dense. Must be all that spaghetti sauce going to your brain.

1. Was there a demonstrable Bradley Effect in 2008? Did Barack Obama lose to John McCain because millions of secret racists told pollsters they'd vote for the black guy, only to check the box next to the old white guy's name? Y/N

2. For every misogynist Clinton loses, she'll bring in one of those weird racists who are gender-egalitarian and voted against Obama in the last two elections.

3. There's a shy Clinton effect, too - not that it matters, because nobody gives a damn about lying to pollsters, particularly when so many of them are robocalls these days.

A lot of the members of the white underclass I know (and I'm one of them) are terrified of Trump, but won't actively support Clinton for fear of losing face. A lot of poor blue-collar guys I know will get drunk and defend Trump on his recent controversies, then grudgingly admit that he shouldn't be President.

[Anthony '58]

Quote:Which source is giving 4%? 538 is still around 13%.

This source:

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/clinton-...psos-poll/

[pbrower2a]

(10-22-2016, 01:40 PM)Anthony Wrote: The bottom line is this: If Hillary wins all the states that Kerry won in 2004, plus Virginia, New Mexico, and Colorado - and she has a seemingly insurmountable lead in all three - she wins.  She wouldn't even need to win in North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Iowa, or Nevada.

But is everyone missing something here; namely, the Bradley Effect - in this case, respondents lying to pollsters because they don't want to be seen as one of those redneck, racist "deplorables" who are backing Donald Trump?  Plus Hillary is a woman, which means some voters could be hiding their Mad Men misogyny by telling pollsters they're for her when they're not.

At the local snake pit (Republican headquarters) I notice some hawking of T-shirts proclaiming 'Deplorables for Trump" as if being so called is a point of pride. At this point I can say that anyone who can still support Donald Trump after all that he has said and has been exposed for having done is very proud to be voting for Donald Trump.

That's how it is with extremists. People are proud to be Commies and Ku Kluxers.

As with George McGovern and Barry Goldwater (which may be more relevant), Donald Trump is almost certainly without support of 'moderates'.

[Bronsin]

Trump will lose this election for a couple of reasons.

First, he never got out of the mud-slinging phase. At some point you have to focus on what you are going to do for the voters to make their lives better, and try to convince people on the fence and the other side that you may be a viable alternative. He has done none of that.

Second, he picked the wrong running mate. Tobe fair, this may have been forced on him as the GOP may have removed him and inserted their own candidate causing a huge firestorm in the party and alienating the whole Republican voter base. He should have chosen Ben Carson IMHO. He is well respected by BOTH black and white communities, and would have went a long way towards unifying the party and bringing more voters to the cause.

Hillary will win, and then I will get to laugh when she tries to explain how bad of a system she inherited even though she has been in the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, creating this huge crap sandwich and it will be pure joy watching her eat every bite of it. WWIII and/or Civil War will be on us very soon, and she will have no one else to blame. Her campaign has been pure garbage as well. Calling half of the voters "deplorable" smacks of the total arrogance of someone who feels like she has the presidency in the bag, and doesn't need to convince them to vote for her or even try to reason with her side.

The amazing part is that in my lifetime, I will have sat through 3 of the shittiest presidents to ever disgrace the Oval Office, and I didn't vote for any of them. I'm getting old enough that I don't even give a damn what kind of hellhole the younger generations want to make for themselves, because they will have to live in it.

[pbrower2a]

Donald Trump would be the worst President ever, the one who tries to exercise dictatorial powers with the aid of a compliant Congress. He would be without empathy for the common man whom he would betray at the behest of his fellow plutocrats. He and a Congress of enough lackeys would make America a nation of cheap labor whose efficiency is world-class... with the aid of some brutal methods, whether the lash that Simon Legree used or the concentration camp. He would create ethnic and religious rifts that shattered Yugoslavia, which might be the only salvation for many Americans.

I would want my state to secede from Trump's America. "Republic of Michigan", anyone? Or would we join Canada?

Canadian media and health care would be improvements.

[Eric the Green]

(10-22-2016, 05:09 PM)Bronsin Wrote: Trump will lose this election for a couple of reasons.

First, he never got out of the mud-slinging phase. At some point you have to focus on what you are going to do for the voters to make their lives better, and try to convince people on the fence and the other side that you may be a viable alternative. He has done none of that.

You got that much right.

Quote:Second, he picked the wrong running mate. To be fair, this may have been forced on him as the GOP may have removed him and inserted their own candidate causing a huge firestorm in the party and alienating the whole Republican voter base. He should have chosen Ben Carson IMHO. He is well respected by BOTH black and white communities, and would have went a long way towards unifying the party and bringing more voters to the cause.

Maybe so, but then the GOP would have had TWO candidates with no experience in government, and only this one campaign in politics. That's fine if we want a team to "shake things up," but it guarantees incompetence in office. And it is for sure that Trump's VP made no difference to his campaign at all. Trump can't be controlled and doesn't take advice. I don't think Carson would have been any better at making excuses for him than Pence has been doing.

Quote:Hillary will win, and then I will get to laugh when she tries to explain how bad of a system she inherited even though she has been in the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, creating this huge crap sandwich and it will be pure joy watching her eat every bite of it. WWIII and/or Civil War will be on us very soon, and she will have no one else to blame. Her campaign has been pure garbage as well. Calling half of the voters "deplorable" smacks of the total arrogance of someone who feels like she has the presidency in the bag, and doesn't need to convince them to vote for her or even try to reason with her side.

The bad system she inherited was the Republican obstruction machine. They are responsible for all the things that are wrong with America. Actually, Hillary's husband and other New Democrats were also complicit in this error regime, but the Democrats also pushed and administered some good policies on many occasions. The Republicans-- practically never, in 35 years. Total bankruptcy.

Quote:The amazing part is that in my lifetime, I will have sat through 3 of the shittiest presidents to ever disgrace the Oval Office, and I didn't vote for any of them. I'm getting old enough that I don't even give a damn what kind of hellhole the younger generations want to make for themselves, because they will have to live in it.

Interesting that, according to my horoscope scoring system, all 3 are among the most electable candidates ever. They had to be, in this media-dominant country. They have not been the best presidents, however. But Obama and Bill Clinton were adequate, while Dubya was horrid. The millennials have a chance to exert their voting power over other generations in the mid-20s. They may take the opportunity to move the nation to the left = forward. On the other hand, their tendency to hate the whole system and lack moderation in temperament may tempt them to support a Trump-like maverick in 2024 that screws up the system for real and leads us to civil war. Especially if the Democrats stay in power for 8 more years, as I am predicting now.

[pbrower2a]

(10-22-2016, 05:09 PM)ronsin Wrote: Trump will lose this election for a couple of reasons.

First, he never got out of the mud-slinging phase. At some point you have to focus on what you are going to do for the voters to make their lives better, and try to convince people on the fence and the other side that you may be a viable alternative. He has done none of that.

We expect solutions. Donald Trump has none.

Quote:Second, he picked the wrong running mate. To be fair, this may have been forced on him as the GOP may have removed him and inserted their own candidate causing a huge firestorm in the party and alienating the whole Republican voter base. He should have chosen Ben Carson IMHO. He is well respected by BOTH black and white communities, and would have went a long way towards unifying the party and bringing more voters to the cause.

Mike Pence would have been a good running mate for just about any Republican running for the Presidency, someone who could eloquently push the Tea Party agenda to people who didn't go for it in 2010, 2012, or 2014. But just think of the debate -- while he seemed reasonable enough, he was proved to contradict Donald Trump.  So he couldn't defend the Trump foreign policy? As the Clinton/Kaine ad says, 'No problem. Neither can we'.

[/quote]

Quote:Hillary will win, and then I will get to laugh when she tries to explain how bad of a system she inherited even though she has been in the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, creating this huge crap sandwich and it will be pure joy watching her eat every bite of it. WWIII and/or Civil War will be on us very soon, and she will have no one else to blame. Her campaign has been pure garbage as well. Calling half of the voters "deplorable" smacks of the total arrogance of someone who feels like she has the presidency in the bag, and doesn't need to convince them to vote for her or even try to reason with her side.

Wait and see. We are in a Crisis Era, and all sorts of crazy stuff is possible. But insulting as the word 'deplorable' is, people who see nothing wrong with a politician who has called for violence at his rallies, an inveterate liar, a bigot, a bad businessman who has been using his alleged acumen as a businessman as his qualification for President, a flaming narcissist, a crackpot on foreign policy, and above a sexual predator.
Decidedly fewer than half of the electorate will vote for him. Surely those people that Hillary Clinton has called 'deplorable' are simply deplorable in their political judgment They may be loving parents who take care of their kids. They may volunteer much in local good works. They may be doing the thankless task of taking care of an incontinent, demented parent. They may give heavily to charity. They might be wonderful workers on their thankless jobs.  Even so their political judgment may go beyond  deplorable to downright execrable.
Part of the potential craziness of a Crisis Era is that a demagogue like Donald Trump might seduce a scared, frustrated nation to vote for him.

[Anthony '58]

Quote:Surely those people that Hillary Clinton has called 'deplorable' are simply deplorable in their political judgment They may be loving parents who take care of their kids. They may volunteer much in local good works. They may be doing the thankless task of taking care of an incontinent, demented parent. They may give heavily to charity. They might be wonderful workers on their thankless jobs. Even so their political judgment may go beyond deplorable to downright execrable.

But privately helping a few - and a few of the same race and religion as you - while vehemently opposing public policies that help the many, including (mostly) those different from you, is deplorable.

[Eric the Green]

[Eric the Green]

[Bob Butler 54]

A CNN editorial, written in the form of a letter to one's daughter.  It focuses on the history of racism and sexism in our country, and presents Trump as a personification of old dark aspects of America.

Sally Kohn Wrote:It is important for you to understand what Donald Trump represents. He is a mirror reflecting a dark and dangerous part of our history that, whether we like it or not, is in all of us. So I want you to understand the part we've all played, whether we meant to or not, in giving rise to Donald Trump.

No doubt Trump is playing with race and gender darkly.  This piece, using a 'simple clear explanation to an 8 year old' format, lays the foundation of the Republican 'Southern Strategy' from the beginnings.

[Mikebert]

(10-22-2016, 05:09 PM)Bronsin Wrote: Calling half of the voters "deplorable" smacks of the total arrogance of someone who feels like she has the presidency in the bag, and doesn't need to convince them to vote for her or even try to reason with her side.

She only called a fifth of voters deplorable (half of the 40% supporting Trump).  This fifth would never vote for her so she gives up nothing by not courting them.

[Einzige]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/...r-fundrai/

Quote:Undercover reporters posing as consultants acting for a Chinese benefactor approached specific pro-Trump and pro-Clinton fundraisers and groups after receiving information that individuals were involved in hiding foreign donations.

Sources also said PACs, “independent” organisations that can raise unlimited sums of money to lobby for or against particular candidates, were being used to circumvent rules.

The pro-Clinton organisations did not respond to initial approaches. But earlier this month an undercover reporter spoke by telephone to Eric Beach, co-chairman of the pro-Trump Great America PAC, which has the backing of Rudy Giuliani, one of Mr Trump’s most senior advisers, as well as the billionaire's son Eric.

Undercover reporters were invited to a Great America PAC event at Stoney's Rockin Country bar in Las Vegas
The reporter said a Chinese client wished to donate to the PAC to support Mr Trump's campaign.

Mr Beach appeared interested despite raising concerns about his nationality and saying he would need to know the donor’s identity.

He suggested the donation could be put through a social welfare organisation called a 501©(4) - or C4 - , which unlike a PAC is not subject to a blanket ban on receiving foreign money, and not required to name donors. He stressed in an email that "any path we recommend is legal".


The reporter then received an email from Jesse Benton, a senior figure at the PAC until being convicted in May in connection with buying a senator’s endorsement on a prior campaign. He said he was a “consultant” and that Mr Beach had not wanted a “paper trail” of contact. He and the PAC later denied that he had worked for it at all since May.

Mr Benton proposed channelling the donation through his own company to mask its origin. It would then be passed on to two C4s before being donated by them to the PAC, or simply used to fund projects the PAC had already planned.

Mr Benton said the $2 million, for which he would submit an invoice for “appearances” would “definitely allow us to spend two million more dollars on digital and television advertising for Trump.” The Chinese benefactor's generosity would be “whispered into Mr Trump’s ear.” He said he had previously helped US donors conceal donations.

Mr Beach then said at the Vegas event last Wednesday: "Trump knows that you know, people have stuck with him … I’m not gonna twist your arm or anything,  I just think that there’s no way that this group, and you guys have been participating indirectly or directly, won’t be remembered."

[Eric the Green]

(10-22-2016, 09:50 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Part of the potential craziness of a Crisis Era is that a demagogue like Donald Trump might seduce a scared, frustrated nation to vote for him.

Indeed so, and the authors specifically mentioned that possibility.