The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Following up on my post in the previous election thread, fivethirtyeight now has Arizona up over 55% chance to go Democrat in Polls-plus, and love 56% in the Now-cast. Alaska is also still creeping incrementally toward Clinton country, at 35% in the Now-cast.

More shocking, perhaps, is that while they still give Utah an overwhelmingly higher likelihood of going Republican, they describe Utah as a four-way race:

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/he ... e-in-utah/
We’ve discovered that people are a little bit obsessed with the presidential race in Utah. An article that my colleague Benjamin Morris wrote last week about Evan McMullin, an independent candidate who is on the ballot there and competitive in recent polls, unexpectedly turned out to be one of the most popular features we’ve written this year at FiveThirtyEight. In this article, I’ll provide a more technical explanation of how our model is forecasting McMullin and why he has a relatively challenging path — and also, one important way in which our forecast might be underrating his chances.

This spring, I spent a lot of time analyzing third-party candidates and how their polls behave in presidential and U.S. Senate races. They’re tricky to forecast for a few reasons:

Polls tend to overstate the performance of third-party candidates early in the race — but not necessarily late in the race.
Third-party candidates have asymmetric probability distributions — see, for example, the chart below for how our model forecasted Gary Johnson’s vote in New Mexico earlier this year. In our average simulation, Johnson’s projected vote share was about 10 percent of the vote. But that average was made up of a majority of cases in which he faded and received less than 10 percent, plus a handful where he broke out and won 25, 30, 35 percent of the vote or more.
silver-forecast-methology-4
A third-party candidate’s polls can behave differently at different thresholds of the vote. A candidate polling in the low single digits — say, 2 or 3 percent — is often just a placeholder for “undecided” and their support can fade to close to zero by Election Day, especially in a competitive race.1 When a candidate is in the mid- to high single digits, conversely, or certainly in the double digits, their standing in polls is more likely to reflect genuine support.
A more important threshold comes somewhere in the range of 25 percent of the vote. Third-party candidates above this range can plausibly win in a three- or four-way race, while candidates below it can only spoil the victory for someone else or serve as protest votes. That’s why you usually don’t see a lot of races with results like: the Republican 39 percent, the Democrat 37 percent, and the independent 24 percent. In a case like that, the independent wasn’t quite close enough to have a shot to win the race herself, but she also had enough support that her voters could easily have tipped the balance between the Democrat and the Republican.
You’ll notice that McMullin, who has received between 20 and 29 percent of the vote in Utah in four recent polls, is close to the threshold I described above. That puts him on something of a precipice: He’s likely to either gain support or lose it instead of staying where he is right now.

screen-shot-2016-10-17-at-1-35-26-pm
What makes this tricky — and why the model probably underestimates McMullin’s chances — is that he’s a late arrival on the scene, having only qualified for the Utah ballot in August and having only started to attract significant attention recently. Typically in mid-October, if you saw an independent polling at 20-something percent, you’d assume he was on his way down after once having been more competitive. McMullin, however, has the potential to benefit from a feedback loop as more people hear about his candidacy and consider him to be a viable option. And it’s interesting that the most recent poll of the bunch, from Rasmussen Reports, gave McMullin his best number. Our model will respond aggressively if further polls find McMullin in the high 20s or low 30s instead of at 20 percent of the vote. You can already see some of the difference in that our now-cast, which weights recent polls more heavily and makes more sympathetic assumptions about third-party candidates, gives McMullin a considerably better chance than the polls-only and polls-plus models do.

McMullin presents some other modeling challenges. Unlike Johnson, who’s drawing support relatively evenly from the two major candidates (perhaps slightly more from Hillary Clinton, although that’s varied over time), McMullin is explicitly appealing to voters who would ordinarily vote Republican for president but who don’t like Donald Trump. Also unlike Johnson, who’s on the ballot everywhere, McMullin is only on the ballot in 11 states and is probably only a prospect to win in Utah, with its heavily Mormon population. (McMullin is Mormon, whereas Mormon voters have a lot of problems with Trump.) Idaho is another possibility, although its Mormon population is considerably smaller than Utah’s and there have been no recent polls there with McMullin on the ballot.

So here’s how we’re handling McMullin in our forecast:

We’re only forecasting McMullin in Utah for now. We’ll add additional states such as Idaho if and when McMullin becomes a factor in the polls there.
In Utah, we’re only using polls that include McMullin — all other polls are weighted to zero.2
McMullin isn’t eligible for some of the fancier adjustments our model applies, such as the house effects adjustment, because there isn’t enough data to do anything all that complicated with him.3 However, the model puts more of a premium on recent polls when estimating McMullin’s vote, as a substitute for our regular trend line adjustment.
Since third-party candidates are a significant contributor to polling error and polling volatility, the uncertainty in Utah is higher in the model because of McMullin’s presence.
The model uses regression analysis — comparing how the other candidates’ vote shares vary with McMullin’s vote — to infer where McMullin is taking his votes from. Currently, it shows about 50 percent is coming from Trump, although with meaningful shares also from Clinton, Johnson and undecided.
The model uses these correlations in its simulations. For instance, in simulations where McMullin does well, more of his gains come from Trump than from Clinton.
As Morris mentioned, McMullin is eligible to be chosen president by the House of Representatives if he finishes in the top three in electoral votes (meaning that he wins Utah or some other state) and no candidate gets a majority of 270 electoral votes. Where these cases come up, the model gives McMullin the presidency 10 percent of the time. (The 10 percent figure is totally arbitrary, but it would be an unprecedented situation so I don’t know what better assumption to make.) While the polls-only model currently has McMullin winning Utah about 6 or 7 percent of the time, the overall parlay is rather unlikely and results in McMullin winning the presidency in only about 1 in every 5,000 simulations.
Why isn’t McMullin’s probability higher? Well, for the time being he’s behind, at least based on the polling average. Polling geeks have focused on the Rasmussen Reports and Y2 Analytics poll that showed a close three-way race in Utah, but less on the YouGov and Monmouth polls that still had Trump ahead (way ahead in the case of YouGov’s poll). A simple average of the four recent polls yields a result of Trump 32 percent, Clinton 26 percent and McMullin 23 percent, putting McMullin within striking distance but also in third place with a 9-point deficit to make up in three weeks.

Another complication is that in cases where Trump is doing badly enough to lose Utah, he’s probably getting crushed by Clinton overall. Yes, the Mormon vote is especially important in Utah and is something of a unique factor. But there are also enough Mormons in Colorado, Nevada and Arizona to potentially swing the outcomes in those states. If Clinton’s winning Arizona — well, it’s probably a full-blown landslide and the election isn’t going to the House.

One could even argue that the whole Utah obsession is misplaced, given that various traditionally red states from Arizona to Alaska are more likely than Utah to end up in Clinton’s column, according to our model. Still, the mere fact that pollsters are thinking about Utah as a competitive state is remarkable. And I wouldn’t be surprised to see McMullin gain further ground in the next round of polling.
I guess it turns out that the Mormons do, in fact, really, really not like the Orange Shit.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
User avatar
Elheru Aran
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13073
Joined: 2004-03-04 01:15am
Location: Georgia

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Elheru Aran »

The Romulan Republic wrote: I guess it turns out that the Mormons do, in fact, really, really not like the Orange Shit.
That shouldn't be a surprise when even a bunch of Republicans don't like Trump. Then you throw in the pathological Clinton-hatred on the right, and of course they aren't going to vote for *her*. Johnson is okay because he's the alternative, I guess, but he's still... not awesome. Enter McMullin, who's all clean-cut and shit, and Mormon to boot.

So yeah, when you have options and the standard choices stink to high heaven, it's not that hard to look elsewhere. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Utah wasn't able to pull together in any one direction. It's quite possible that a couple of other states might be similarly split. Johnson, McMullin and (lol) Stein don't really have the clout to change anything much across the board, but they could have enough influence in a few states to make things interesting.
It's a strange world. Let's keep it that way.
User avatar
Tsyroc
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13748
Joined: 2002-07-29 08:35am
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Tsyroc »

Elheru Aran wrote:
The Romulan Republic wrote: I guess it turns out that the Mormons do, in fact, really, really not like the Orange Shit.
That shouldn't be a surprise when even a bunch of Republicans don't like Trump. Then you throw in the pathological Clinton-hatred on the right, and of course they aren't going to vote for *her*. Johnson is okay because he's the alternative, I guess, but he's still... not awesome. Enter McMullin, who's all clean-cut and shit, and Mormon to boot.

So yeah, when you have options and the standard choices stink to high heaven, it's not that hard to look elsewhere. I wouldn't be surprised at all if Utah wasn't able to pull together in any one direction. It's quite possible that a couple of other states might be similarly split. Johnson, McMullin and (lol) Stein don't really have the clout to change anything much across the board, but they could have enough influence in a few states to make things interesting.
I'd take McMullin over Trump or Johnson. He's not on the Arizona ballot so the Arizona Mormons will have to go with someone else.

It'd be interesting if McMullin could win Utah and Johnson is able to swing New Mexico. I mean, this election is all sorts of fucked up might as well go full on fucked up and make it really interesting.
By the pricking of my thumb,
Something wicked this way comes.
Open, locks,
Whoever knocks.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Then their's talk of Bernie winning Vermont on write-in ballots.

I don't really buy it myself, and I'd rather consolidate all the progressive turnout behind Clinton as much as possible in any case (even if Vermont would be very unlikely to change the outcome), but it would be interesting.

I'd really rather not lose New Mexico to Johnson though. Not that I think we're at all likely to. I still think the likeliest outcome is that Clinton gets Obama's 2012 states plus NC and Arizona and just possibly Georgia and Alaska, with the Orange Fascist, sadly, taking the rest.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Flagg »

FireNexus wrote:
Dragon Angel wrote:Yeah, fuck this. I've been trying to be understanding of the other side as much as possible yet I'm still being accused of endorsing terrorism. Not being confident your enemy will be gracious is not endorsing terrorism, and you can fuck off with that.
When you say "this enemy is so bad that it is unethical to donate to them to help recover from an act of terrorism apparently committed by our allies" you are endorsing the act of terrorism. You're saying "They don't deserve our help in cleaning up an act of terrorism committed by our allies" which you may think is functionally different from supporting terrorism, but it's not.

Your words say "I do not support this abhorrent act of terrorism" but your actions, in denouncing attempts to assist the victims of terrorism, say "Bombs away."

You can ignore that and run away all you like. But it's a fact. You are openly denouncing behavior designed to signal to terrorists that their behavior is not endorsed by those with a shared political ideology. And even if my interpretation is overly harsh, it has the virtue of being how the people who you need to convince to vote in favor of your rights will view it.
This, essentially. I mean I don't believe Dragon Angel supports blowing up Republican campaign offices, but outright attacking those on "our side" who are helping victims of terrorism because they are regressive when it comes to your issues (which makes them assholes) is just as callous, if not more so, than the dipshit brigade whose opinions come mostly from ignorance and elected Republicans throwing red meat.

And what's truly sad about people on the left attacking others on the left for helping victims of terrorism is that it lowers them to the level of Donnie Douchebag and his pointy headed masked supporters.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Flagg »

The Romulan Republic wrote:Then their's talk of Bernie winning Vermont on write-in ballots.

I don't really buy it myself, and I'd rather consolidate all the progressive turnout behind Clinton as much as possible in any case (even if Vermont would be very unlikely to change the outcome), but it would be interesting.

I'd really rather not lose New Mexico to Johnson though. Not that I think we're at all likely to. I still think the likeliest outcome is that Clinton gets Obama's 2012 states plus NC and Arizona and just possibly Georgia and Alaska, with the Orange Fascist, sadly, taking the rest.
No one cares about Burnout Bernie. I can't wait until the election is over so I don't have to hear about his loserdom. Well, until he goes back to being an independent.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
Gandalf
SD.net White Wizard
Posts: 16353
Joined: 2002-09-16 11:13pm
Location: A video store in Australia

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Gandalf »

The Romulan Republic wrote:Then their's talk of Bernie winning Vermont on write-in ballots.
Talk from whom? Anyone credible, or grumpy Berniebros?
"Oh no, oh yeah, tell me how can it be so fair
That we dying younger hiding from the police man over there
Just for breathing in the air they wanna leave me in the chair
Electric shocking body rocking beat streeting me to death"

- A.B. Original, Report to the Mist

"I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately."
- George Carlin
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Neither, by the looks of it.

Its mostly Right wing sites that seem to be promoting Bernie write-in stuff, with obvious ulterior motives.

But as I said, I don't really buy it. Its just one of those hypothetical scenarios, like McMullen winning Utah, which is fun to imagine but probably won't ever happen. I fully expect a blue Vermont come election day.

Edit: Purely as a hypothetical, though, I wonder what would happen if Bernie netted a few electors by write-in. As I understand it, their's no requirement for electors to go the way their state voted, so would/could they simply vote Clinton anyway?
Last edited by The Romulan Republic on 2016-10-17 11:32pm, edited 1 time in total.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
User avatar
maraxus2
Padawan Learner
Posts: 340
Joined: 2016-04-11 02:14am
Location: Yay Area

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by maraxus2 »

Gandalf wrote:
The Romulan Republic wrote:Then their's talk of Bernie winning Vermont on write-in ballots.
Talk from whom? Anyone credible, or grumpy Berniebros?
The latter. Clinton is currently polling +33 points on Trump in Vermont. There's not a chance that Bernie write-ins will have any impact on the election whatever. Especially not when the man himself is out stumping for Hillary.
The Romulan Republic wrote:Then their's talk of Bernie winning Vermont on write-in ballots.

I don't really buy it myself, and I'd rather consolidate all the progressive turnout behind Clinton as much as possible in any case (even if Vermont would be very unlikely to change the outcome), but it would be interesting.

I'd really rather not lose New Mexico to Johnson though. Not that I think we're at all likely to. I still think the likeliest outcome is that Clinton gets Obama's 2012 states plus NC and Arizona and just possibly Georgia and Alaska, with the Orange Fascist, sadly, taking the rest.
I see someone's been reading 538's polls-plus model with some care.

Johnson is currently averaging 14% in the polls in NM. It's been consistently been in Hillary's column, and Trump's never led in the polling aggregate out there. Considering that Johnson is quite likely to completely shit the bed on election day, I'd be surprised if she didn't win more than 50% in that state.
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

Johnson is currently averaging 14% in the polls in NM. It's been consistently been in Hillary's column, and Trump's never led in the polling aggregate out there. Considering that Johnson is quite likely to completely shit the bed on election day, I'd be surprised if she didn't win more than 50% in that state.
Explanation: Sometimes people who say they will vote third party, stare at that ballot and the staggering immensity of the consequences of their vote stares back. At which point, the sane ones vote strategically. The smart money is that the balance of them in the libertarian and green party camps will vote for Hillary because Trump is completely off his fucking rocker.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
User avatar
maraxus2
Padawan Learner
Posts: 340
Joined: 2016-04-11 02:14am
Location: Yay Area

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by maraxus2 »

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Explanation: Sometimes people who say they will vote third party, stare at that ballot and the staggering immensity of the consequences of their vote stares back. At which point, the sane ones vote strategically. The smart money is that the balance of them in the libertarian and green party camps will vote for Hillary because Trump is completely off his fucking rocker.
That and, to put it mildly, third parties kinda suck, both in terms of their candidates and in terms of their voter mobilization. The Greens are far from healthy as a party - Bernie's candidacy cut their membership in California roughly in half - and they don't do much organizing beyond putting up some homeopath every four years. They have a few people elected to City Councils and one or two people on county Boards of Supervisors. They have a singular goal of getting 5% in the polls every election, and they never really come close even when they have serious nominees like Nader.

The Libertarians don't fare much better. They actually have elected officials in state legislatures, although they got elected as Republicans. They can get a significant chunk of the vote in weird statewide elections, but they've never come close to actually winning the seat. And Gary Johnson's a pretty shitty weirdo candidate. Apart from acting like a stoner in national interviews, his attempts to prey on disgruntled Sanders voters are so transparent as to be worthless.
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Wow, the odds of taking the Senate have gone way up on fivethirtyeight of late.

81.2% in the Now-cast, 70.6% in Polls-only, and 73.8% in Polls-plus. I see that the Nevada Senate race that so recently seemed a lost cause is leaning blue in all three, to varying degrees.

For the Presidential race, Arizona is up to over 60% odds of going Democrat in the Now-cast, and Alaska appears to be continuing its gradual creep towards blue. The Now-cast is back over a 90% chance of a Democratic victory overall, and even Polls-plus (the most pessimistic) is over 85%.

I really, really hope that Clinton lands a knock-out in the final debate, enough to solidify her hold on Arizona and make Alaska and Georgia competitive.

On that note, anyone have any predictions for the finale debate? I expect Clinton to win again, because seriously, how the hell could Trump ever best her in a debate? But I'm a bit worried about Trump completely losing it. He already went to using Bill Clinton's accusers as political props, threatening to arrest Clinton, and acting physically intimidating, and if possible, he's gotten worse since then. I actually wonder if he'll make an attempt to incite violence, or even threaten Clinton with violence, during the debate. Although its hard to believe that even Trump could be that stupid.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
User avatar
Lord Revan
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12229
Joined: 2004-05-20 02:23pm
Location: Zone:classified

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Lord Revan »

Besides Trump doesn't strike me as someone who would willingly put himself a situation that would clearly harm him and a clear and obvious threat targeted towards Clinton or her supporters would be such a situation. In fact Trump strikes me more as someone who's "brave"(read:a bully) when he is in a precieved position of power but a total coward when he looses that position.
I may be an idiot, but I'm a tolerated idiot
"I think you completely missed the point of sigs. They're supposed to be completely homegrown in the fertile hydroponics lab of your mind, dried in your closet, rolled, and smoked...
Oh wait, that's marijuana..."Einhander Sn0m4n
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Yeah, that sounds about right.

But he's also an egomaniac, and I am concerned that he might overestimate how much he can get away with.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by K. A. Pital »

The Romulan Republic wrote:But I'm a bit worried about Trump completely losing it. He already went to using Bill Clinton's accusers as political props, threatening to arrest Clinton, and acting physically intimidating, and if possible, he's gotten worse since then. I actually wonder if he'll make an attempt to incite violence, or even threaten Clinton with violence, during the debate. Although its hard to believe that even Trump could be that stupid.
Why are you afraid of this, when such behaviour would actually mean Trump losing the election even harder?
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

Because he'd further stir up his nut bag supporters who might act on it, obviously.

We don't need it to win, and in any case, I'd rather win in a manner that didn't involve blood in the streets.

Edit: Seriously, barring some major catastrophe in the next three weeks, or Putin fraud, their's pretty much no way that we don't win this by a wide margin now. Clinton doesn't even really need to do anything, beyond delivering a solid performance in the next debate. Just sit back and let the Republicans sink themselves.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by K. A. Pital »

Putin fraud? What do you mean, Putin coming to the US to fake the election results or something? :lol:

And let's face it, Clinton is a bad candidate. Trump is an absolute nightmare though, and that's the only reason Clinton will win this regardless of her performance. Was it a more cunning and less idiotic Republican candidate, he'd wipe the floor with Clinton and win this.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
maraxus2
Padawan Learner
Posts: 340
Joined: 2016-04-11 02:14am
Location: Yay Area

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by maraxus2 »

K. A. Pital wrote:Putin fraud? What do you mean, Putin coming to the US to fake the election results or something? :lol:

And let's face it, Clinton is a bad candidate. Trump is an absolute nightmare though, and that's the only reason Clinton will win this regardless of her performance. Was it a more cunning and less idiotic Republican candidate, he'd wipe the floor with Clinton and win this.
I'm not so sure about that. Republicans have won two of the last six presidential elections by the narrowest of margins (537 votes in Florida in 2000, and about 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004) and have a big structural problem nationwide. The Obama coalition wins Democrats the Presidency, and it's certainly more true now.

In order to win, the Republicans need to convince the Obama coalition to either vote for them or to stay home. Which of the knuckleheads in the 2016 primary would have been able to do that? Cruz? He was more hated than Trump. Bush? He was a paper tiger from the beginning. Rubio? Maybe, but he's struggling mightily to win re-election in Florida, and lost his own primary by a 3:1 margin.

Maybe Bernie or Elizabeth Warren would be winning by larger margins, and maybe Rubio would make Clinton have narrower ones. It's hard to see how they'd break up the Obama coalition.


On another note, I'm interested to see what happens to the Republicans that end up down in the Bunker on election day. Giuliani has had an almost Shakespearian fall from grace, Christie too. Their destruction has been breathtaking to behold.
What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.
User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20813
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by K. A. Pital »

I have meant a candidate outside the current pool of morons and political cripples that they have.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali
User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 21559
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by The Romulan Republic »

K. A. Pital wrote:Putin fraud? What do you mean, Putin coming to the US to fake the election results or something? :lol:

And let's face it, Clinton is a bad candidate. Trump is an absolute nightmare though, and that's the only reason Clinton will win this regardless of her performance. Was it a more cunning and less idiotic Republican candidate, he'd wipe the floor with Clinton and win this.
I'm referring to the possibility of Russian hackers trying to manipulate the election results.
"I know its easy to be defeatist here because nothing has seemingly reigned Trump in so far. But I will say this: every asshole succeeds until finally, they don't. Again, 18 months before he resigned, Nixon had a sky-high approval rating of 67%. Harvey Weinstein was winning Oscars until one day, he definitely wasn't."-John Oliver

"The greatest enemy of a good plan is the dream of a perfect plan."-General Von Clauswitz, describing my opinion of Bernie or Busters and third partiers in a nutshell.

I SUPPORT A NATIONAL GENERAL STRIKE TO REMOVE TRUMP FROM OFFICE.
User avatar
FireNexus
Cookie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:10am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by FireNexus »

maraxus2 wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Explanation: Sometimes people who say they will vote third party, stare at that ballot and the staggering immensity of the consequences of their vote stares back. At which point, the sane ones vote strategically. The smart money is that the balance of them in the libertarian and green party camps will vote for Hillary because Trump is completely off his fucking rocker.
That and, to put it mildly, third parties kinda suck, both in terms of their candidates and in terms of their voter mobilization. The Greens are far from healthy as a party - Bernie's candidacy cut their membership in California roughly in half - and they don't do much organizing beyond putting up some homeopath every four years. They have a few people elected to City Councils and one or two people on county Boards of Supervisors. They have a singular goal of getting 5% in the polls every election, and they never really come close even when they have serious nominees like Nader.

The Libertarians don't fare much better. They actually have elected officials in state legislatures, although they got elected as Republicans. They can get a significant chunk of the vote in weird statewide elections, but they've never come close to actually winning the seat. And Gary Johnson's a pretty shitty weirdo candidate. Apart from acting like a stoner in national interviews, his attempts to prey on disgruntled Sanders voters are so transparent as to be worthless.
Gary Johnson acts like a stoner in the way Donald Trump acts like Donald Trump on Twitter.
I had a Bill Maher quote here. But fuck him for his white privelegy "joke".

All the rest? Too long.
User avatar
FireNexus
Cookie
Posts: 2131
Joined: 2002-07-04 05:10am

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by FireNexus »

K. A. Pital wrote:I have meant a candidate outside the current pool of morons and political cripples that they have.
That candidate almost certainly couldn't win a Republican primary. It isn't that Trump is a bad candidate, it's that the modern GOP is constitutionally incapable of nominating a good one on the national stage.
I had a Bill Maher quote here. But fuck him for his white privelegy "joke".

All the rest? Too long.
Q99
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2105
Joined: 2015-05-16 01:33pm

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Q99 »

On Hillary being a 'weak candidate'- She has the black vote locked up. The hispanic vote. Very well with the women vote. And, these things were aided by Trump being the opponent, but not reliant on them.

Most of her scandals are only scandals to certain demographics of the population. Her low popularity is truthfully a lopsided popularity.

If one assumes that Trump is doing a full 4 points worse than a normal Republican (something I'd buy).... Hillary'd still be ahead by 3~ points. And a 4-point difference is *huge*.

Everyone else she could be put up against has flaws of note too- whether one is talking Jeb, Rubio, or Cruz. Hillary would also continue to have the surrogate advantage.

No Trump means it'd be a tighter race, but Hillary has a number of strong advantages that are not reliant on her foe being Trump.
User avatar
Alyrium Denryle
Minister of Sin
Posts: 22224
Joined: 2002-07-11 08:34pm
Location: The Deep Desert
Contact:

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Alyrium Denryle »

K. A. Pital wrote:I have meant a candidate outside the current pool of morons and political cripples that they have.
:wtf: Does. Not. Compute.

They dont have any. Their base is too radicalized to permit anyone sane through a primary election on a national scale. This is why they have had to pull ridiculous stunts like obstruct SCOTUS appointments. It is the only way they can keep their incumbencies and even then they are slowly losing to the reactionary wing of their party.

Anyone the national republicans can nominate, cannot win the general election where sanity prevails.

They are on the verge of a party split, and have been spiraling toward that for the last 8 years.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/
Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences


There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.

Factio republicanum delenda est
Crazedwraith
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 11937
Joined: 2003-04-10 03:45pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

Post by Crazedwraith »

A 'Balanced' Piece from the BBC Stating both why Trump will win and why he will lose.
Post Reply