The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[LaCroix]

With all these write-in candidates siphoning Trump votes, and the increasing possibility of straight votes for Pence, is the "no one gets 270" result getting more likely?

[Crossroads Inc.]

No... not even close LaCroix,
Mostly because the states for Hillary are DEEPLY for Hillary.
If anything 3rd part support tends to drop off as we get closer to election day.

[Iroscato]

Huh, so the Dems might claw back control of the Senate this year as well? That would be just a marvellous bonus...

[maraxus2]

snip knowledgable guy post

Maraxus, I've been meaning to ask. Do you work in politics? Your posts seem to imply that you have a professional knowledge of the field.

Sure do. I work for a campaign shop that does lots of local elections out here in California, but I follow lots of political stuff around the country.

Frankly, Texas has a better chance of flipping than Utah etc..

Really? I heard that the redness/blueness of a state more often than not boils down to the ratio of the rural population to the urban population. If rural < urban you tend to get blue states, if rural > urban you tend to get red states.

So considering that Texas is the second largest state in the Union by land area, there would be a larger rural population compared to Utah's. Though I guess the more fundamentalist Mormons in Utah might be a factor as well.

Not quite. Utah might flip because Trump, Clinton, Johnson, and McMillan are all splitting up the vote roughly evenly. Clinton's path to victory relies on her keeping the roughly 30-35% of Utahans who vote Dem (SLC is actually a pretty left-wing city as far as it goes), while McMillan, Trump, and Johnson all split the remaining 70-65% of the vote between them. It's probably not going to work, since McMillan should be a good enough candidate for most of the Regular Mormon Republicans to vote for, while the freaks and survivalists vote for Trump and Johnson respectively. That and the trendlines don't favor her winning and this is just the one poll.

As for Texas, most of the population isn't rural. Rural Texas (outside of the Rio Grande Valley anyway) does vote overwhelmingly Republican, but nobody lives out there. The Texas GOP makes their margins in the suburbs, like Irving, Arlington, and all of the other suburbs around Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, and Austin. At the moment, these places are among the most reflexively Republican in the entire country. It's hard to see how Clinton can win in Texas, since it requires the Tejano voters to break overwhelmingly for Clinton and they tend to vote more Republican than Latinos as a whole. It also requires the crazy suburb voters to stay home. Difficult to see both these things happening.

[TheFeniX]

So considering that Texas is the second largest state in the Union by land area, there would be a larger rural population compared to Utah's.

Utah is more Urban that Texas (~90% vs 80%), but Texas is a decidedly Urban state as that's where a majority of the population is centered.

Hispanics in Texas are going to flip this state blue at some point, or at least make it a swing state. That and more liberal whites and other minorities. While many of them are not liberal and many I've talked to HATE illegal immigrants,* Repbulicans in the national level will not stop taking swings at their race as a whole.

*NOTE: Hispanic views on illegal immigrants are improving, but successive generations still seem to look dimly on them.

Anyways, while I doubt Texas will ever become liberal, at some point enough old, racist, die-hard conservatives will kick off and be replaced by a younger generation that has no loyalty to either party. Texas Hispanics are getting more liberal by the year, but are still fairly socially conservative. In my totally uneducated opinion: they aren't Democrats as much as they have no choice to be because "Holy shit, the Republican party on a national level is really fucking racist."

[Iroscato]

I do think it's kind of funny/satisfying how 538's CoW are at pretty much the same level as they were in the aftermath of the DNC which cause a massive surge - only this time, Hillary has done basically nothing, just letting Trump play himself out and reveal what a buffoon/pig he really is.

[LaCroix]

No... not even close LaCroix,
Mostly because the states for Hillary are DEEPLY for Hillary.
If anything 3rd part support tends to drop off as we get closer to election day.

Good.
The possibility of the house choosing someone "out of the blue" in that case had me almost as worried as a Trump win.

[SolarpunkFan]

So considering that Texas is the second largest state in the Union by land area, there would be a larger rural population compared to Utah's.

Utah is more Urban that Texas (~90% vs 80%), but Texas is a decidedly Urban state as that's where a majority of the population is centered.

Hispanics in Texas are going to flip this state blue at some point, or at least make it a swing state. That and more liberal whites and other minorities. While many of them are not liberal and many I've talked to HATE illegal immigrants,* Repbulicans in the national level will not stop taking swings at their race as a whole.

*NOTE: Hispanic views on illegal immigrants are improving, but successive generations still seem to look dimly on them.

Anyways, while I doubt Texas will ever become liberal, at some point enough old, racist, die-hard conservatives will kick off and be replaced by a younger generation that has no loyalty to either party. Texas Hispanics are getting more liberal by the year, but are still fairly socially conservative. In my totally uneducated opinion: they aren't Democrats as much as they have no choice to be because "Holy shit, the Republican party on a national level is really fucking racist."

Ah. Thank you!

[The Vortex Empire]

With all these write-in candidates siphoning Trump votes, and the increasing possibility of straight votes for Pence, is the "no one gets 270" result getting more likely?

538 gives that a 0.6% chance of happening.

Other interesting stats from there, 5.4% chance of a recount in a state with less than 0.5% difference, 5.3% chance Clinton wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college, 0.7% chance of Trump doing the same. 34.7% of Clinton getting over 50% of the vote, 1.3% chance of Trump getting over 50% of the vote.

[maraxus2]

Anyways, while I doubt Texas will ever become liberal, at some point enough old, racist, die-hard conservatives will kick off and be replaced by a younger generation that has no loyalty to either party. Texas Hispanics are getting more liberal by the year, but are still fairly socially conservative. In my totally uneducated opinion: they aren't Democrats as much as they have no choice to be because "Holy shit, the Republican party on a national level is really fucking racist."

Agreed. I think the Texas GOP is also in danger of becoming a victim of its own success. Not to get too much into value judgments here, but the state is basically non-competitive for local and State Dems. Outside of the big cities and a handful of the suburbs, they really don't have much of a presence. The vast majority of state legislative seats are noncompetitive and the Dems don't have much of a path to victory for statewide races either. This allows the Texas GOP to run fucking imbeciles like Greg Abbot, Dan Patrick, and Sid Miller for critical seats. The Dems did essentially the same thing when they were in charge, and the GOP managed to win statewide in a heavily Democratic (if conservative) state by portraying themselves as reform candidates who were competent enough to do the job in the first place.

[Simon_Jester]

So considering that Texas is the second largest state in the Union by land area, there would be a larger rural population compared to Utah's. Though I guess the more fundamentalist Mormons in Utah might be a factor as well.

Remember that Texas is a desert once you get inland away from the coast. There's a reason cattle ranching became a major traditional economic activity in 19th century Texas- namely, because it's too dry to support agriculture. As a result, the population density is very, very low.

Land is not people, people are not land.

Huh, so the Dems might claw back control of the Senate this year as well? That would be just a marvellous bonus...

The Republicans hold 24 of the 34 seats up for election; if they lose four seats the Senate is tied, and if they lose five it goes to the Democrats. It is certainly possible for this to happen.

The flip side of that is that the Democrats have twenty-something seats up for re-election in 2018, so a huge amount of what happens to the Senate then will depend on events in the intervening two years. Sort of like how the Democrats made large gains in the Senate in 2006 due to the unpopularity of Bush, but suffered losses in 2010 due to the Republican backlash against Obama.

[TheFeniX]

Agreed. I think the Texas GOP is also in danger of becoming a victim of its own success. Not to get too much into value judgments here, but the state is basically non-competitive for local and State Dems.

Sort of true. "Texas crazy" is hostile to non-Texans, not generally political affiliation. Texas Democrats have very good representation here (considering how hostile we are to them on a national level, House of Rep aside), though the higher you get, the more Red everything becomes. If you're wondering why Texas Law is so fucking stupid, just look at who's in charge of the whole thing vs other local representatives. Democrats can and do win here all the time.

I DID have something on political affiliation of the Mayors here, but I lost it. Damn it. Whatever, my back hurts and google hates me right now.

The "a California Conservative is a Texas Democrat" line still holds true..... though, I should trade in my cowboy hat because I think I butchered that line.

The shift to red for governers is hard to pin down. However, Perry locked it up for a long time for taking credit (due to the stupid way Texas does it budgets) for the state riding out multiple recessions much better than most states. Also, (and my memory might be hazy here), but I recall during his election campaigns the Democrats were putting up multiple candidates who spent the entire cycle destroying EACH OTHER in spectacular fashion. He could literally sit back and do nothing and watch his opponents rip each other to pieces. I do recall wanting to spit at my TV until I died of dehydration.

NOTE: I was way more up on the politics of Texas in the mid-2000s. So, take what I'm talking about with a grain of salt. The bullshit here just wears you out after enough time, you stop caring.

Remember that Texas is a desert once you get inland away from the coast.

Is this hyperbole? I assume so, but you might want to avoid it when discussing Texas because there's already a lot of misconceptions about this fucked up state. Texas, outside the Pan Handle, is mostly farm/cattle grazing land, not dustbowls like in most Western movies. Desert land makes up maybe 10% of the state.

[Simon_Jester]

I suppose I was using 'desert' in a context where it is more accurate to say 'highly arid piece of real estate.' Cattle can graze on a lot of land which is quite arid. Moreover, unless I am mistaken, much of Texas agriculture is supported by irrigation- which doesn't really conflict with my point- that rural Texas, while vast in size, is sparsely populated even by the standards of rural America.

Thank you for the correction, nevertheless.

[maraxus2]

Agreed. I think the Texas GOP is also in danger of becoming a victim of its own success. Not to get too much into value judgments here, but the state is basically non-competitive for local and State Dems.

Sort of true. "Texas crazy" is hostile to non-Texans, not generally political affiliation. Texas Democrats have very good representation here (considering how hostile we are to them on a national level, House of Rep aside), though the higher you get, the more Red everything becomes. If you're wondering why Texas Law is so fucking stupid, just look at who's in charge of the whole thing vs other local representatives. Democrats can and do win here all the time.

I DID have something on political affiliation of the Mayors here, but I lost it. Damn it. Whatever, my back hurts and google hates me right now.

The "a California Conservative is a Texas Democrat" line still holds true..... though, I should trade in my cowboy hat because I think I butchered that line.

The shift to red for governers is hard to pin down. However, Perry locked it up for a long time for taking credit (due to the stupid way Texas does it budgets) for the state riding out multiple recessions much better than most states. Also, (and my memory might be hazy here), but I recall during his election campaigns the Democrats were putting up multiple candidates who spent the entire cycle destroying EACH OTHER in spectacular fashion. He could literally sit back and do nothing and watch his opponents rip each other to pieces. I do recall wanting to spit at my TV until I died of dehydration.

NOTE: I was way more up on the politics of Texas in the mid-2000s. So, take what I'm talking about with a grain of salt. The bullshit here just wears you out after enough time, you stop caring.

Oh for sure. But the Dems just don't seem like they have much influence on state policymaking anymore. They're in charge of practically all of the big cities and counties, but they're pretty deep in the minority in the Ledge (roughly comparable to the GOP out here in Cali) and they have no statewide offices. Goodhair Perry was around long enough to fill just about every nook and cranny of state government with his proteges and appointees, including the Governor's mansion.

I guess the point I"m trying to make with the whole "incompetent imbeciles" statement is that it seems to me that Texas' current crop of statewide figures are deeply unserious about policymaking. With the exception of Joe Strauss, who at least appears to be both interested in policy and is good at politics, none of the dickheads in state government should be on the City Council, much less controlling state government.

Greg Abbott is the definition of an empty suit who appears to have no real beliefs outside of whatever the bottom third of the Texas GOP happens to believe. Dan Patrick is a fucking lunatic who is trying to break the cities by limiting the amount of property tax they can levy. Also he's dedicating his time to teach creationism in schools and allowing pastors to refuse to marry gay people and/or interracial couples. Ken Paxton is a crook (literally, he's under indictment for stock fraud) who managed to get caught despite the fact that Texas doesn't really have stock fraud laws. Sid Miller is an even dimmer bulb who recently tried to bill the Texas taxpayer over a thousand bucks so he could go to Oklahoma and get a "Jesus shot" to cure chronic pain. And George P. Bush managed to get elected because he was an unlanded failson of a famous political family, rather than despite it.

The Texas Democrats used to get into trouble all the time over penny-ante bullshit, and ultimately it cost them the allegiance of the few suburbanites willing to vote for them, as well as the rural voters who sustained them during the lean years in the 1980's. I can only hope that the same will eventually happen to the Texas GOP too.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Can someone more informed than me check this article? Link On the surface it seems pretty solid but being a Huffpost article I cannot be sure of its trustworthiness. I'm arguing with a Trump apologist by pointing out the man is racist- the kicker is that guy accuses me of being duped by the media while spouting Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories.

[The Romulan Republic]

A Russian lawmaker and close supporter of Putin tells America that if we do not elect Trump, their will be nuclear war.

Yes, really.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/putin ... ar-n665376

MOSCOW — Americans should vote for Donald Trump as president next month or risk being dragged into a nuclear war, according to a Russian ultra-nationalist ally of President Vladimir Putin who likes to compare himself to the U.S. Republican candidate.

Vladimir Zhirinovsky, a flamboyant veteran lawmaker known for his fiery rhetoric, told Reuters in an interview that Trump was the only person able to de-escalate dangerous tensions between Moscow and Washington.

By contrast, Trump's Democratic rival Hillary Clinton could spark World War Three, said Zhirinovsky, who received a top state award from Putin after his pro-Kremlin Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR) came third in Russia's parliamentary election last month.

Related: Putin Says Hacking 'Hysteria' Aims to Distract U.S. Public

PlayPutin Claims U.S. Provoking Anti-Russian Sentiment Facebook Twitter Google PlusEmbed
Putin Claims U.S. Provoking Anti-Russian Sentiment 2:08
Many Russians regard Zhirinovsky as a clownish figure who makes outspoken statements to grab attention but he is also widely viewed as a faithful servant of Kremlin policy, sometimes used to float radical opinions to test public reaction.

"Relations between Russia and the United States can't get any worse. The only way they can get worse is if a war starts," said Zhirinovsky, speaking in his huge office on the 10th floor of Russia's State Duma, or lower house of parliament.

Image: Leader of Liberal Democratic Party of Russia Zhirinovsky speaks during interview with Reuters in Moscow
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, speaks during an interview with Reuters in Moscow on Oct. 11. MAXIM ZMEYEV / Reuters
"Americans voting for a president on Nov. 8 must realize that they are voting for peace on Planet Earth if they vote for Trump. But if they vote for Hillary it's war. It will be a short movie. There will be Hiroshimas and Nagasakis everywhere."

Zhirinovsky's comments coincide with deep disagreements between Washington and Moscow over Syria and Ukraine and after the White House last week accused Russia of a campaign of cyber attacks against Democratic Party organizations.

Even as WikiLeaks released another trove of internal documents from Clinton's campaign on Wednesday, Putin insisted his country was not involved in an effort to influence the U.S. presidential election.

Related: Trump Was Told That Russia Did Hacks Long Before Debate

Zhirinovsky likes to shock liberal public opinion and he has frequently heaped scorn on the West, which he and other Russian nationalists regard as decadent, hypocritical and corrupted by political correctness.

His combative style, reminiscent of Trump's, ensures him plenty of television air time and millions of votes in Russian elections, often from the kind of blue-collar workers who are the bedrock of the U.S. Republican candidate's support.

PlayOCT. 11: Trump Says 'Shackles' Are Off, Unleashes Anti-GOP Tirade Facebook Twitter Google PlusEmbed
OCT. 11: Trump Says 'Shackles' Are Off, Unleashes Anti-GOP Tirade 2:16
Zhirinovsky once proposed blocking off mostly Muslim southern Russia with a barbed wire fence, echoing Trump's call for a wall along the U.S. border with Mexico.

Zhirinovsky, who said he met Trump in New York in 2002, revels in his similarities with the American businessman — they are the same age, favor coarse, sometimes misogynistic language and boast about putting their own country first. Zhirinovsky has even said he wants a DNA test to see if he is related to Trump.

But unlike Trump, a billionaire real estate developer who casts himself as the anti-establishment candidate in the U.S. presidential race with no past political experience, Zhirinovsky is a consummate political insider who has sat in the Duma for more than two decades.

Related: Follow Trail of Russian Hackers, Putin's Revenge in Siberia

Putin has also praised Trump as "very talented", while the Republican candidate has said the Kremlin boss is a better leader than U.S. President Barack Obama. Clinton has accused Trump of being too cozy with Putin and questioned his business interests in Russia.

PlayOCT. 8: Could Russian Hackers Be Targeting U.S. Election Systems? Facebook Twitter Google PlusEmbed
OCT. 8: Could Russian Hackers Be Targeting U.S. Election Systems? 2:17
In other comments that have delighted Moscow, Trump has questioned the value of NATO for Washington, has spoken ambiguously about Russia's 2014 annexation of Ukraine's Crimea and suggested that the United States under his leadership would adopt a more isolationist foreign policy.

"He (Trump) won't care about Syria, Libya and Iraq and why an earth should America interfere in these countries? And Ukraine. Who needs Ukraine?," said Zhirinovsky, who once counted himself a friend of Iraq's Saddam Hussein and Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi and whose deaths he still laments.

"Trump will have a brilliant chance to make relations more peaceful ... He's the only one who can do this," he said, adding that Trump could even win a Nobel peace prize.

Related: U.S. Publicly Blames Russian Government for Hacking

In contrast, Zhirinovsky described Clinton as "an evil mother-in law" and said her record as secretary of state under Obama in 2009-2013 showed she was unfit to lead her country.

"She craves power. Her view is that Hillary is the most important person on the planet, that America is an exceptional country, as Barack Obama said," said Zhirinovsky. "That's dangerous. She could start a nuclear war."

PlayOCT. 11: Clinton Faces New Questions Over New Hacked and Leaked Emails Facebook Twitter Google PlusEmbed
OCT. 11: Clinton Faces New Questions Over New Hacked and Leaked Emails 2:14
In typically chauvinistic remarks, Zhirinovsky said Clinton's gender should also bar her from the presidency.

"Most Americans should choose Trump because men have been leading for millions of year. You can't take the risk of having one of the richest, most powerful countries led by a woman president," he said.

Asked about lewd comments Trump made about women in 2005 that have harmed his campaign, Zhirinovsky defended the Republican: "Men all round the world sometimes say such things that are just for their comrades. We must only consider his business (and political) qualities."

Though Putin and Trump have never met, Zhirinovsky said he believed they could establish a close working relationship, adding: "Victory for Trump would be a gift to humanity. But if Hillary Clinton wins it will be the last U.S. president ever."

God willing, its just a bluff/scare tactics, but this is a new low, both in this miserable election and in Putin's shameful brinksmanship and electioneering.

Make no mistake: A vote for Trump is a vote for Vladimir Putin.

Jesus, what the hell are they even thinking? Do they think it will actually sway the election? Or do anything other than increase the likelihood of war and solidify anti-Russian sentiment in America?

And before anyone tells me that I'm being alarmist, let me reiterate: This is a report from a major mainstream news outlet quoting a prominent Russian legislator closely aligned with Putin, saying point blank that their will be a nuclear war between Russia and America if Trump is not elected. Make of that what you will.

[Flagg]

I'm shaking in my boots.

[The Vortex Empire]

That's Zhirinovsky, the man is a tool of the Kremlin used to test how the public reacts to extreme ideas. He also said that Russia should set off a nuke in the Black Sea to make a tsunami destroy Istanbul in the wake of incident with the fighter Turkey shot down in Syria, wrote a book about how Russia needs to conquer the Middle East, advocates retaking all the former Soviet states along with Finland and Alaska, etc.

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, as I said, I doubt that this is actually a serious declaration of Russia's intent.

It is, however, a shameful and inflammatory attempt at election manipulation, albeit one that will likely backfire badly. Or else fear-mongering propaganda for internal consumption ala North Korea.

Regardless, I stand by my conclusion that a vote for Trump is effectively a vote for Putin.

In an odd way, I'm rather happy about that. I never thought, before this election, that I'd get a chance to vote against Lord Vladimort.

[The Romulan Republic]

Here's a funny thought (not really serious, just black humour):

What if this message was made with input from Trump himself? We know he does business with Russian oligarchs. Presumably he is in communication with them.

I mean, I can totally see the orange man child saying that the world will burn if he doesn't win.

[Lord Revan]

Either way I dout there's really that big of a risk of WW3, as I said in the other thread Putin doesn't really strike me as someone who would do anything that would have high chance of becoming more harmless then beneficial to him and starting nuclear war because the "wrong" condidate won the US presidental elections is at top of the list of thing that are "more harmful then beneficial". Zhirinovsky isn't really taken seriously here in Finland so that should tell how big of a risk this really is.

[bilateralrope]

Donald Trump 'was like an octopus': three women come forward to claim he touched them inappropriately

Turns out it wasn't just "locker room banter".

[Omega18]

Donald Trump 'was like an octopus': three women come forward to claim he touched them inappropriately

Turns out it wasn't just "locker room banter".

Actually this report is already dated with it now being at least four women.
http://people.com/politics/donald-trump ... le-writer/

[K. A. Pital]

Well, as I said, I doubt that this is actually a serious declaration of Russia's intent.

No.

Zhirinovsky is a clown. He is not a 'prominent legislator' but rather a buffoon or court jester at Putin's court, if you like. His job is to entertain the public with drunk antics, airing just about every crazy and extreme idea out there, and testing how the public reacts. Do they laugh? Are they dismayed? Do they like it, as a joke, or is it a joke in poor taste? Or a totally unfunny joke which nobody cares about?

This is his job, and he is quite skilled at it.

[FaxModem1]

Well, as I said, I doubt that this is actually a serious declaration of Russia's intent.

No.

Zhirinovsky is a clown. He is not a 'prominent legislator' but rather a buffoon or court jester at Putin's court, if you like. His job is to entertain the public with drunk antics, airing just about every crazy and extreme idea out there, and testing how the public reacts. Do they laugh? Are they dismayed? Do they like it, as a joke, or is it a joke in poor taste? Or a totally unfunny joke which nobody cares about?

This is his job, and he is quite skilled at it.

Would an American analogue be say, Vermin Supreme?