The 2016 US Election (Part III)

[Patroklos]

Good ol' straight-up racism, in other words-- many, many other words, but no, yeah, that's pretty much what it boils down to.

Translation: All evidence points elsewhere, but I have magic knowledge that I can't show you that says otherwise...

[The Romulan Republic]

Trump's percentages have taken a beautiful dive over on fivethirtyeight. Last I checked, the Dems. had over 60% chance of victory in Polls-only and Polls-plus, and 70% in the Now-cast.

Florida has flipped back to leaning Dem. in Polls-only, and Florida, Nevada, and NC have in the Now-cast.

[Crossroads Inc.]

Ugh RR, I try to look at 538 maybe only once a week except to read articles.
looking at things like day to day NowCasts just, get you jumpy

[The Romulan Republic]

Well, I posted this because its about a ten to fifteen point jump over a few days ago, and enough time has passed that we're really seeing the post-debate bounce. So I think now is a good time to take note of it.

You'll also note that I did not just include the Now-cast (probably the least reliable), but the others as well.

[Q99]

Good ol' straight-up racism, in other words-- many, many other words, but no, yeah, that's pretty much what it boils down to.

Translation: All evidence points elsewhere, but I have magic knowledge that I can't show you that says otherwise...

Pfft, these were the group that openly embraced birtherism and sold 'put the white back in the whitehouse' bumpserstickers.

Evidence not only doesn't point elsewhere, it points where it does with a blinking neon sign.

It's kinda funny how people'll just try and pretend that stuff isn't racism.

[Lord Insanity]

The Bottom Line:

Almost always, he found, individual voting power is higher when funneled through districts--such as states--than when pooled in one large, direct election. It is more likely, in other words, that your one vote will determine the outcome in your state and your state will then turn the outcome of the electoral college, than that your vote will turn the outcome of a direct national election. A voter therefore, Natapoff found, has more power under the current electoral system.

The Electoral College does exactly what it is supposed to. It gives the underdog a greater chance of winning acting as a check against tyranny of the majority.

Tell me about the power of the vote of a democrat in a solid republican state, or a democrat in a solid republician state. Because the power of their vote seems pretty weak to me, given that their state will go to the party they don't want and they know before the election that their vote can't change it. Even when the actual winner of the presidency remains uncertain.

That is a problem with any state wide vote. (Governor, state constitutional amendments, referendums, etc.) The way to change that is to have a candidate (or proposal) with broad cross party appeal.

You are also mistakenly assuming the presidency is a single national election. It is actually 51 separate state elections. (D.C. counts as a state for this purpose.) Making the presidency a single national popular vote only makes the problem of minority or underdog votes not counting worse. The electoral college giving the minority candidate a slim chance (as opposed to none) forces candidates in general to be more moderate with broad appeal or lose badly to those that do.

[Simon_Jester]

Good ol' straight-up racism, in other words-- many, many other words, but no, yeah, that's pretty much what it boils down to.

Translation: All evidence points elsewhere, but I have magic knowledge that I can't show you that says otherwise...

Pfft, these were the group that openly embraced birtherism and sold 'put the white back in the whitehouse' bumpserstickers.

Evidence not only doesn't point elsewhere, it points where it does with a blinking neon sign.

It's kinda funny how people'll just try and pretend that stuff isn't racism.

People have a lot of motivation to do that when they personally are not avowedly racist, but don't want to feel too uncomfortable with a group that happens to have racist supporters. Ditto for sexism.

Because that makes the "it's not racist/sexist" arguments very personal.

Trump's percentages have taken a beautiful dive over on fivethirtyeight. Last I checked, the Dems. had over 60% chance of victory in Polls-only and Polls-plus, and 70% in the Now-cast.

Florida has flipped back to leaning Dem. in Polls-only, and Florida, Nevada, and NC have in the Now-cast.

We told you so!

You were watching those numbers soooo carefully, and you freaked when thy hit 50/50 even for a moment out of random jitter... and now they're headed back to where they were before.

[Q99]

Trump's percentages have taken a beautiful dive over on fivethirtyeight. Last I checked, the Dems. had over 60% chance of victory in Polls-only and Polls-plus, and 70% in the Now-cast.

Florida has flipped back to leaning Dem. in Polls-only, and Florida, Nevada, and NC have in the Now-cast.

Note, Florida is *before* the Cuba revelation.

Also, this election I'm more polls-only than polls-plus, on the grounds that the fundamentals are so *weird* and what with several Republicans endorsing Hillary.

[FireNexus]

The only "plus" in polls plus is an economic status modifier.

[Q99]

The only "plus" in polls plus is an economic status modifier.

Also presidential approval, and historic performance in the states.

[FaxModem1]

Remember everyone, a vote for Trump is a vote for keeping those gays away......I mean protecting your first amendment rights.

LGBT Nation

AP Photo/Cheryl Senter
Donald Trump has been courting the LGBTQ vote throughout this presidential election, claiming he would be the better choice for the community than opponent Hillary Clinton and promising to protect us from terrorism in his Republican National Convention speech.

Advertisement

That argument gets harder to believe by the week, as he gives speeches at anti-LGBTQ events, sticks up for homophobic and transphobic legislation and surrounds himself with bigoted politicians and advisers. Now we have a new offense to add to the list.

Trump has pledged to sign the First Amendment Defense Act (FADA), if passed by congress. It was first introduced in the House on June 17, 2015 and would effectively legalize anti-LGBTQ discrimination across the board, including among employers, businesses, landlords and healthcare providers, as long as they claim to be motivated by a firmly held religious beliefs.

It would act to overturn the executive order signed in 2014 by President Obama prohibiting anti-LGBTQ discrimination among federal contractors.

The statement, added to Trump’s website on Thursday under the title “Issues Of Importance To Catholics” and the subtitle “Religious Liberty,” reads:

Religious liberty is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is our first liberty and provides the most important protection in that it protects our right of conscience. Activist judges and executive orders issued by Presidents who have no regard for the Constitution have put these protections in jeopardy. If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths. The Little Sisters of the Poor, or any religious order for that matter, will always have their religious liberty protected on my watch and will not have to face bullying from the government because of their religious beliefs.

Religious liberty is enshrined in the First Amendment to the Constitution. It is our first liberty and provides the most important protection in that it protects our right of conscience. Activist judges and executive orders issued by Presidents who have no regard for the Constitution have put these protections in jeopardy. If I am elected president and Congress passes the First Amendment Defense Act, I will sign it to protect the deeply held religious beliefs of Catholics and the beliefs of Americans of all faiths. The Little Sisters of the Poor, or any religious order for that matter, will always have their religious liberty protected on my watch and will not have to face bullying from the government because of their religious beliefs.

FADA’s text reads:

Prohibits the federal government from taking discriminatory action against a person on the basis that such person believes or acts in accordance with a religious belief or moral conviction that: (1) marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman, or (2) sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage.

Advertisement

Defines “discriminatory action” as any federal government action to discriminate against a person with such beliefs or convictions, including a federal government action to:

alter the federal tax treatment of, cause any tax, penalty, or payment to be assessed against, or deny, delay, or revoke certain tax exemptions of any such person;
disallow a deduction of any charitable contribution made to or by such person;
withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any federal grant, contract, subcontract, cooperative agreement, loan, license, certification, accreditation, employment, or similar position or status from or to such person; or
withhold, reduce, exclude, terminate, or otherwise deny any benefit under a federal benefit program.
Requires the federal government to consider to be accredited, licensed, or certified for purposes of federal law any person who would be accredited, licensed, or certified for such purposes but for a determination that the person believes or acts in accordance with such a religious belief or moral conviction.

Permits a person to assert an actual or threatened violation of this Act as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding and to obtain compensatory damages or other appropriate relief against the federal government.

Authorizes the Attorney General to bring an action to enforce this Act against the Government Accountability Office or an establishment in the executive branch, other than the U.S. Postal Service or the Postal Regulatory Commission, that is not an executive department, military department, or government corporation.

Defines “person” as any person regardless of religious affiliation, including corporations and other entities regardless of for-profit or nonprofit status.

[The Romulan Republic]

Translation: All evidence points elsewhere, but I have magic knowledge that I can't show you that says otherwise...

Pfft, these were the group that openly embraced birtherism and sold 'put the white back in the whitehouse' bumpserstickers.

Evidence not only doesn't point elsewhere, it points where it does with a blinking neon sign.

It's kinda funny how people'll just try and pretend that stuff isn't racism.

People have a lot of motivation to do that when they personally are not avowedly racist, but don't want to feel too uncomfortable with a group that happens to have racist supporters. Ditto for sexism.

Because that makes the "it's not racist/sexist" arguments very personal.

Trump's percentages have taken a beautiful dive over on fivethirtyeight. Last I checked, the Dems. had over 60% chance of victory in Polls-only and Polls-plus, and 70% in the Now-cast.

Florida has flipped back to leaning Dem. in Polls-only, and Florida, Nevada, and NC have in the Now-cast.

We told you so!

You were watching those numbers soooo carefully, and you freaked when thy hit 50/50 even for a moment out of random jitter... and now they're headed back to where they were before.

I was looking at what appeared to be a mostly downward trend, and frankly I thought the media and perhaps the public would largely frame the debate as a Trump win, because expectations for him were so low.

Had I know that the resounding consensus would be that Clinton would thrash the bloated orange fascist in the debate, I'd have probably been less worried.

[Q99]

I was looking at what appeared to be a mostly downward trend, and frankly I thought the media and perhaps the public would largely frame the debate as a Trump win, because expectations for him were so low.

Had I know that the resounding consensus would be that Clinton would thrash the bloated orange fascist in the debate, I'd have probably been less worried.

The big irony-
I was pretty sure that Hillary would trash him because she's got a *history* of being underestimated, then exceeding expectations, while meanwhile there was talk of him not practicing.

A lot of media people seemed to think Hillary was in some trouble, the sick thing, etc.. The narrative had turned against her once again.

However, if everyone thought like I did, a big victory would have less effect. Because she did have the narrative against her, a reversal is all the more splash, and it not only was a 'good debate' but throws in big perceptions about momentum and such too. A crap narrative can be an asset if it doesn't have too much chance to do damage first.

[Simon_Jester]

I was looking at what appeared to be a mostly downward trend, and frankly I thought the media and perhaps the public would largely frame the debate as a Trump win, because expectations for him were so low.

Had I know that the resounding consensus would be that Clinton would thrash the bloated orange fascist in the debate, I'd have probably been less worried.

I know what you were thinking, I'm not criticizing you, and I don't blame you.

Still, we told you so.



Now if only we can get SolarpunkFan to lighten up a little.

[LaCroix]

Making the presidency a single national popular vote only makes the problem of minority or underdog votes not counting worse. The electoral college giving the minority candidate a slim chance (as opposed to none) forces candidates in general to be more moderate with broad appeal or lose badly to those that do.

Reality opposes your theory: (Electoral votes and popular results)

Code: Select all

2012 
Party 	  	
  	 Nominees      Presidential      Vice Presidential   	 ElectoralVote 	Popular Vote
	 Democratic 	winner 	Barack Obama 	Joseph Biden 	      332 	61.7% 	65,899,660 	51.1%
	 Republican 	  	     Mitt Romney 	Paul Ryan 	        206 	38.3% 	60,932,152 	47.2%
2008
 	 Democratic 	winner 	Barack Obama 	Joseph Biden 	    365 	67.8% 	69,456,897 	52.9%
	 Republican 	  	John McCain 	Sarah Palin 	            173 	32.2% 	59,934,814 	45.7%

2000 
	 Republican 	winner 	George W. Bush Richard Cheney 	271 	50.4% 		50,455,156 	47.9%
	 Democratic 	  	Albert Gore, Jr. 	Joseph Lieberman 266 	49.4% 		50,992,335 	48.4%
	 Green 	  	     Ralph Nader 	Winona LaDuke      	0 	0% 	         2,882,738 	 2.7%

1972
 	 Republican 	winner 	Richard M. Nixon 	Spiro Agnew 	520 	96.7% 	47,169,911 	60.7%
	 Democratic 	  	George McGovern 	Sargent Shriver    	17 	3.2%   	29,170,383 	37.5%

You can take just about any election, and will see that the underdog would have had a better chance using the popular vote.

[The Romulan Republic]

Florida and Nevada have now both flipped back to leaning blue in the Polls-plus and Polls-only forecasts.

Ohio is back in the blue column in the Now-cast, along with Florida, Nevada, and NC.

[Thanas]

https://angrystaffofficer.com/2016/03/0 ... p-version/

[Flagg]

https://angrystaffofficer.com/2016/03/0 ... p-version/

That's just not accurate. It wasn't simply a picture of a lumpy wet turd.

[Vendetta]

Also it was way too on-topic and didn't have nearly enough petty sniping at former Miss Universe contestants, against whom The Donald appears to think he is running for President.

[Q99]

Florida and Nevada have now both flipped back to leaning blue in the Polls-plus and Polls-only forecasts.

Ohio is back in the blue column in the Now-cast, along with Florida, Nevada, and NC.

Woo, Ohio! I was less sure on that one.

Glad to see Hillary has a few-state buffer again, if soft in places.

Nice to see even polls plus is at 65/35.

[SolarpunkFan]

Now if only we can get SolarpunkFan to lighten up a little.

You rang?

I am happy to announce that the first debate trouncing has gotten me out of my electoral blues.

Oh, and then there's Trump completely losing it as well.

[Simon_Jester]

Also it was way too on-topic and didn't have nearly enough petty sniping at former Miss Universe contestants, against whom The Donald appears to think he is running for President.

Well, the Gettysburg Address is widely considered the greatest speech of Lincoln's career, or one of his greatest.

Whereas the hell of it is, that, the thing in the link... that is the greatest speech Trump could conceivably give. It's not just "the speech he'd give after Gettysburg." It's "his version of the Gettysburg Address." The best that the sad, demented, bullying creep could ever hope to accomplish.

[Lord Insanity]

Making the presidency a single national popular vote only makes the problem of minority or underdog votes not counting worse. The electoral college giving the minority candidate a slim chance (as opposed to none) forces candidates in general to be more moderate with broad appeal or lose badly to those that do.

Reality opposes your theory: (Electoral votes and popular results)

Code: Select all

2012 
Party 	  	
  	 Nominees      Presidential      Vice Presidential   	 ElectoralVote 	Popular Vote
	 Democratic 	winner 	Barack Obama 	Joseph Biden 	      332 	61.7% 	65,899,660 	51.1%
	 Republican 	  	     Mitt Romney 	Paul Ryan 	        206 	38.3% 	60,932,152 	47.2%
2008
 	 Democratic 	winner 	Barack Obama 	Joseph Biden 	    365 	67.8% 	69,456,897 	52.9%
	 Republican 	  	John McCain 	Sarah Palin 	            173 	32.2% 	59,934,814 	45.7%

2000 
	 Republican 	winner 	George W. Bush Richard Cheney 	271 	50.4% 		50,455,156 	47.9%
	 Democratic 	  	Albert Gore, Jr. 	Joseph Lieberman 266 	49.4% 		50,992,335 	48.4%
	 Green 	  	     Ralph Nader 	Winona LaDuke      	0 	0% 	         2,882,738 	 2.7%

1972
 	 Republican 	winner 	Richard M. Nixon 	Spiro Agnew 	520 	96.7% 	47,169,911 	60.7%
	 Democratic 	  	George McGovern 	Sargent Shriver    	17 	3.2%   	29,170,383 	37.5%

You can take just about any election, and will see that the underdog would have had a better chance using the popular vote.

Is this a joke? The underdog has no chance at all using the popular vote. He loses period. This is especially hilarious that you have the 2000 election results showing one of the few times the underdog wins via the electoral college. Making it possible to win despite losing the popular vote is exactly what the electoral college is supposed to do.

[Q99]

But it's only supposed to do that if the college members have a major reason to, it's not supposed to be a roll of the dice based on where the lines happen to fall like it normally is.

You rang?

I am happy to announce that the first debate trouncing has gotten me out of my electoral blues.

Oh, and then there's Trump completely losing it as well.

Wow, he's really focusing on attacking a private individual!


In retrospect, it impresses me that for such a long time he managed to avoid grudge-hates against an individual women (not since Megyn Kelly. But after that, the Judge, and the Gold Star family). I suppose it was a matter of time!

[Flagg]

Now if only we can get SolarpunkFan to lighten up a little.

You rang?

I am happy to announce that the first debate trouncing has gotten me out of my electoral blues.

I don't really see how anyone but a Donnie Douchebag supporter (no, I'm not saying you are) could actually believe the man would be elected President. I mean I'm not knocking you, the very fact that one party in our dumb two-party system would actually nominate that empty suite piece of elephant shit is scary to a degree. But honestly, unless they actually learn something this time (as opposed to 2008 and 2012) it's the last gasp of the GOP and not a moment too soon.

I'd say "stick a fork in him, he's done" but I'm afraid it would pop the human suit and the shit monster from 'Dogma' would come spilling out.