2016 US Presidential Election

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:13 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:Isn't this giving too much credit to the media? I mean, people know that Trump is a power-tripping asshole whose views (at the least) border on racism. He's not subtle.

The simpler explanation is that a significant number of voters simply like Trump, because of those things. And another bunch does't consider those things disqualifying downsides, even if they might have preferred a more polite republican.

There's so much blame to pass around that it's easy to say, "well my part is small, it's the others people's fault. " Right now Hillary is at 50℅odds, which fell a lot over the weekend. That's only a 2 point difference from her previous 60% Chance of winning. Having the third party vote break her way provides a huge swing. Or it could be the enthusiasm gap. Or the lazy media, etc etc. There's a lot of cogs in this wheel, but they all play a part.

*Soap box*
Spoiler:
The perennial love of outsiders is hurting us. Like the economy is gonna crumble under Trump because it's a lot easier to break things than it is to improve them. Mostly via trade. The racial injustice stuff won't have a lot of economic impact. It just means aggrieved whites are terrible people. The ultra rich will suffer a bit as their stocks go down, but the dynamics won't change. They'll still get the biggest chunk of the shrinking pie. Trump certainly isn't going to make them part their share. *

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:44 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:The simpler explanation is that a significant number of voters simply like Trump, because of those things. And another bunch does't consider those things disqualifying downsides, even if they might have preferred a more polite republican.


This seems like the dominant factor. Yes, yes, the media cheerfully focus on Trump's trainwrecks, unable to look away, but that's been consistent. Doesn't explain swings.

At the end of the day, Trump has fairly traditional support. The candidates may not be *liked* by many, but that only matters in certain regards.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Sep 26, 2016 2:54 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Zamfir wrote:The simpler explanation is that a significant number of voters simply like Trump, because of those things. And another bunch does't consider those things disqualifying downsides, even if they might have preferred a more polite republican.


This seems like the dominant factor. Yes, yes, the media cheerfully focus on Trump's trainwrecks, unable to look away, but that's been consistent. Doesn't explain swings.

At the end of the day, Trump has fairly traditional support. The candidates may not be *liked* by many, but that only matters in certain regards.

I'm aware he's not well liked. That's not the same as not letting him execute awful programs. Cheney wasn't well liked either, but he did some awful crap, and got reelected. If you can't stop torture even when it's really unpopular, what chance does a minority have to not be abused when there's substantial support for say, extra tough policing(shoot first, don't bother asking) or torturing people again. There's a lot of people in the country that fall under thugs or other out terrorists. I'm one trade war away from belonging in an ostracized group too.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby morriswalters » Mon Sep 26, 2016 3:18 pm UTC

Bush got elected, not Cheney.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Sep 26, 2016 4:49 pm UTC

And even that's twice-arguable... ;)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 26, 2016 5:22 pm UTC

Oh, tough policing is something either can support, and will if there's public support for it. And apparently, there is.

And we're *all* one step from being an ostracized group.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7604
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Zamfir » Mon Sep 26, 2016 6:11 pm UTC

If you can't stop torture even when it's really unpopular

I though it was more like, a minority against torture, a minority in favour of it, and a balance ofpeople who'll accept some torture if it's not too icky and not too often. The same for the Iraq war, at the time. Enthusiasts + lukewarm supporters made up a comfortable majority.

User avatar
SlyReaper
inflatable
Posts: 8015
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 11:09 pm UTC
Location: Bristol, Old Blighty

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SlyReaper » Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:36 pm UTC

Poe's Law strikes again, because I can't actually tell if this is satire or not.

http://usuncut.com/news/surgeon-general-warns-drinking-every-time-trump-lies-debate-result-acute-alcohol-poisoning/
Image
What would Baron Harkonnen do?

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:37 pm UTC

Zamfir wrote:
If you can't stop torture even when it's really unpopular

I though it was more like, a minority against torture, a minority in favour of it, and a balance ofpeople who'll accept some torture if it's not too icky and not too often. The same for the Iraq war, at the time. Enthusiasts + lukewarm supporters made up a comfortable majority.
given how much grief the bush years caused, that's a discomforting statement.

I'm gonna head over to a friend's house for the debate. There's gonna be beer and wings. Should be like boxing chess but with more blood.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 4060
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Sep 26, 2016 8:56 pm UTC

So, what will happen in the poles (e: polls!) if the debate ends up in physical violence between the participants? Does it matter who throws the first punch? Does it matter how that was provoked? Does it matter if the moderator stands back, tries to stop it or joins in himself?

Probably not going to happen. Just asking for a candidate friend.
Last edited by Soupspoon on Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:54 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 703
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby SDK » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:24 pm UTC

Probably doesn't matter who starts it (it will be seen as justified by pretty much everyone, either way), but I expect Hillary would see a large bump if she won.
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Mon Sep 26, 2016 9:28 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:So, what will happen in the poles if the debate ends up in physical violence between the participants? Does it matter who throws the first punch? Does it matter how that was provoked? Does it matter if the moderator stands back, tries to stop it or joins in himself?

Probably not going to happen. Just asking for a candidate friend.


The more important question is, will the Secret Service stand down during the fight, or will they brawl among themselves in some kind of Trump vs Clinton proxy battle?

IE: Are we looking at a "Hockey Fight" (1v1 typically) or a "Baseball Fight" (Entire Team joins in) ??
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:21 pm UTC

SDK wrote:Probably doesn't matter who starts it (it will be seen as justified by pretty much everyone, either way), but I expect Hillary would see a large bump if she won.


Said effect will promptly be spoiled by Clinton claiming she had nothing to do with the unfortunate accident.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Mon Sep 26, 2016 11:15 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Oh, tough policing is something either can support, and will if there's public support for it. And apparently, there is.

And we're *all* one step from being an ostracized group.

Are you referring to the second amendment, discrimination, or being white? Or maybe homo or trans groups rising up?

Couple hours before the debate. Here's the attacking points of each side. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you ... -politics/

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Tue Sep 27, 2016 1:01 am UTC

It's staaartiiiiiinggggg!

Nervous.

Edit: I think Trump is going to be really bad about not having audience participation.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:19 am UTC

Oh dear. I think Donald may be sick...

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:29 am UTC

The cyber! The nuclear!
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

Mambrino
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:45 pm UTC
Location: No we don't have polar bears. Except in zoos.

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Mambrino » Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:36 am UTC

The stamina!

moiraemachy
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:47 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby moiraemachy » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:04 am UTC

He lost really hard in the beginning, but managed to recover somewhat. My take is:

10-7 Hillary
10-9 Trump
10-9 Trump

Since MMA scoring translates directly to votes, Hillary will get a 1% bump and Trump will lose 1%. Science.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:11 am UTC

I know Clinton faces a double standard and all, but she should have hit Trump harder on his racism, sexism, neonazi support, and his foundation.

User avatar
Djehutynakht
Posts: 1546
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2011 1:37 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Djehutynakht » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:19 am UTC

There are still 2 more Presidential debates to go. Can't use up all the material yet.


As for this debate, I think Donald did better at the beginning. He was trying to appear calm, composed and Presidential. And I think... he did a decently good job. I was impressed. But as the debate went on, he lost it. He reverted to his natural state. He took too many baits. He became the same tempermental, shouty, interrupting thing he usually is. And I think that's telling.

Now, Trump supporters will not care that he reverted to his usual self, but it might be off-putting to moderates.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:28 am UTC

Djehutynakht wrote:There are still 2 more Presidential debates to go. Can't use up all the material yet.


As for this debate, I think Donald did better at the beginning. He was trying to appear calm, composed and Presidential. And I think... he did a decently good job. I was impressed. But as the debate went on, he lost it. He reverted to his natural state. He took too many baits. He became the same tempermental, shouty, interrupting thing he usually is. And I think that's telling.

Now, Trump supporters will not care that he reverted to his usual self, but it might be off-putting to moderates.

The first debate is the most important, you should definitely use up your best material. I think Trump did fine. Anything that would have made an undecided voter think Trump might be a racist or sexists. He's done a really good job convincing iffy Republicans that Trump isn't racist or sexists enough to matter.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Thesh » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:31 am UTC

I think Hillary missed an opportunity to attack Trump on trade. One of the big reasons to move to Mexico is because they have free trade agreements with more countries than the United States, and another is lower wages. Unless you want to subsidize exports, or enact economic sanctions or something, you can't fix the first without more free trade agreements, and you can't fix the second without lowering wages.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:00 am UTC

I can't imagine how many women watching saw visions of themselves debating/talking with a man in that debate. From what 538 shared, she made 5 "passing interjections", Trump made 24 and completely interrupted 3 times (Clinton 0). Like Djehutynakht said, that's not going to win over any undecideds.

I was spooked by how calm he was in the beginning, but it totally disintegrated not too far in while Clinton was, I must say, quite presidential the whole time. Very content with how it turned out. Maybe she could have gone after a few more things, been less stilted about the birther stuff, but really Trump sunk himself enough that she didn't really need to.
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:16 am UTC

Thesh wrote:The cyber! The nuclear!


The 10-year old who is good with computers vs the 400 lb hacker.

What the fuck is Trump even talking about? I mean, all politicians go braindead when the words "cyber" are mentioned. Hillary's comments were... inadequate for various reasons. What is "retaliation" exactly? Military? Purely cyber? Etc. etc. Very vague and generic answer.

But Trump... I don't even... what the fuck was he saying?

Liri wrote:I was spooked by how calm he was in the beginning, but it totally disintegrated not too far in while Clinton was, I must say, quite presidential the whole time. Very content with how it turned out. Maybe she could have gone after a few more things, been less stilted about the birther stuff, but really Trump sunk himself enough that she didn't really need to.


But Trump said his temperament was good.

</sarcasm>

In case anyone forgot how that moment went...

Thesh wrote:I think Hillary missed an opportunity to attack Trump on trade. One of the big reasons to move to Mexico is because they have free trade agreements with more countries than the United States, and another is lower wages. Unless you want to subsidize exports, or enact economic sanctions or something, you can't fix the first without more free trade agreements, and you can't fix the second without lowering wages.


With all the low-hanging fruit to pummel Trump today, I think Clinton did fine. I think her strategy of sit back and watch Trump show off his "Temperment" was a fine strategy. Clinton said enough to get under Trump's skin, and then let Trump do the rest of the talking.

Its really hard to say "Hillary missed an opportunity" when Trump forgot to mention "Basket of Deplorables". Trump could have easily evened the odds on the "race relations" issue, but he seems to have forgotten Clinton's newest mistake.

Then the email thingy... Hillary apologized and then the debate went on without a hitch. This was clearly Hillary's weakest point in the entire debate and Trump did jack diddly to take advantage of it.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Lazar
Landed Gentry
Posts: 2151
Joined: Tue Dec 29, 2009 11:49 pm UTC
Location: Massachusetts

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Lazar » Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:25 am UTC

I think Trump did well at the very beginning (as Thesh indicates, Hillary should have levied a more direct attack on protectionism), but as the debate progressed he really began to make a fool of himself. He took Hillary's bait several times and wandered into the weeds: no one gives a shit what you said to Sean Hannity or what Patti Solis Doyle told Sidney Blumenthal to tell McClatchy of McClatchy to do. His segue from race to "law and order" (making an ineffective and unconstitutional policy the center of it) was cringey, as were his responses on the gender and stamina issues (to which Hillary had good comebacks). He effectively admitted and advocated tax evasion, and when Hillary suggested that opening fire on trash-talking Iranian sailors might trigger an armed conflict, his well-considered retort was "no it wouldn't". His response about the accusation of racist practices in the 70s was terrible too: he didn't even bother to actually deny it, instead pointing out that "they were suing a lot of real estate developers back then" (yeah, no shit), and that he settled the suit with no admission of guilt (apparently unaware of how such settlements tend to be received in the court of public opinion). Also, amusingly, Hillary managed to look healthier than Trump: he sniffled several times and needed water; she didn't even cough once.

All in all, this debate makes me feel somewhat more confident in Hillary's ability to win: hopefully it'll arrest the recent swing toward Trump, at least. I think her preparedness and Trump's lack of it were decisive here.
Last edited by Lazar on Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:00 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Exit the vampires' castle.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Sep 27, 2016 4:41 am UTC

Lazar wrote:I think Trump did well at the very beginning (as Thesh indicates, Hillary should have levied a more direct attack on protectionism), but as the debate progressed he really began to make a fool of himself. He took Hillary's bait several times and wandered into the weeds: no one gives a shit what you said to Sean Hannity or what Patty Solis Doyle told Sidney Blumenthal to tell McClatchy of McClatchy to do. His segue from race to "law and order" (making an ineffective and unconstitutional policy the center of it) was cringey, as were his responses on the gender and stamina issues (to which Hillary had good comebacks). He effectively admitted and advocated tex evasion, and when Hillary suggested that opening fire on trash-talking Iranian sailors could trigger an armed conflict, his well-considered response was "no it wouldn't". His response about the accusation of racist practices in the 70s was terrible too: he didn't even bother to actually deny it, instead pointing out that "they were suing a lot of real estate developers back then" (yeah, no shit), and that he settled the suit with no admission of guilt (apparently unaware of how such settlements tend to be received in the court of public opinion). Also, amusingly, Hillary managed to look healthier than Trump: he sniffled several times and needed water; she didn't even cough once.

All in all, this debate makes me feel somewhat more confident in Hillary's ability to win: hopefully this will arrest the recent swing toward Trump, at least. I think her preparedness and Trump's lack of it were decisive here.


The "Stamina" issue just cuts to the heart of the Trump "bubble". Lets not pretend that we don't know what he was trying to say here: Hillary is sickly and is too physically weak to be president. This means he buys into the bullshit propaganda. I'm wondering if Trump simply underestimated Clinton here.

On the other hand, with today's super-polarized country, we'll have to wait to see what people in general think of the debate tomorrow. My opinion apparently is worthless (IE: Trump is the Republican Nominee), and Trump's early performance was solid IMO. The question is if enough people were paying attention to the 2nd half where Trump's talking points just fall apart.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Sep 27, 2016 5:15 am UTC

That's a big issue with most analysis. We make really good points, and then we realize in the end that nothing we thought moved the polls. That's a big concern of mine, where the information bubbles, both liberal and conservative, mean we don't react the same way to events. Basic example, both Hillary and Trump said they'd take away guns, but since Hillary is a Democrat, a single issue 2nd amendment voter wouldn't trust Hillary, but is ok with Trump.

I'm also concerned about emotion beating out Hillary's use of fear and wonkishness. Trump's advantage is you get more votes scaring white people to vote for Trump than you do scaring (minorities) people to be afraid of Trump.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10548
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 27, 2016 5:40 am UTC

Are there really people other than big businesses who think that lowering the corporate tax rate will be super beneficial to the poor?

teelo
Posts: 783
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:50 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby teelo » Tue Sep 27, 2016 5:41 am UTC

Vote for Trump (the Hearthstone streamer) for president of Blizzard Entertainment in 2016. Make Priests great again.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Sep 27, 2016 5:49 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Are there really people other than big businesses who think that lowering the corporate tax rate will be super beneficial to the poor?

Yes, by default every Republican believes that lowering taxes in general will be super beneficial to the poor. Or lowering taxes any shape or form. We call it trickle down economics and it's very popular for conservatives. They either say the tax cuts will simulate growth, assuming huge multipliers on said cuts, or push for taxes that sound like they affect Americans, but don't really. (aka estate tax)

As for the corporate tax, it's possible to pull an Ireland and get a big benefit by stealing your neighbors companies. Otherwise, the argument is the taxable money is sitting overseas doing nothing. If only someone would lower the rate to zero, and let that money be spent in the US, or so the argument goes.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 10331
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby addams » Tue Sep 27, 2016 6:22 am UTC

Liri wrote:And now this to add in. Did Trump blatantly lie during one of the debates or did he perjure himself?
http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-je ... ing-502144
Trump had been boasting for weeks at his rallies that he knew the political system better than anyone, because he had essentially bought off politicians for decades by giving them campaign contributions when he wanted something.

The Donald is very proud of his wealth and how above the law money puts him.
Remember;' He could shoot someone and not lose one vote.'

morriswalters wrote:The staus quo isn't working. Consider the Wells Fargo debacle. Someones head should be on a spike. And what happens? Congressional hearings, a small fine and some mea culpa's. I'll translate that for you. No penalty whatsoever of a type that will prevent it in the future. What has Hillary or Congress, or for that matter Obama done? Rinse and repeat with the drug industry. And the auto industry. And the security establishment. The elites have failed. And the public knows it. Donald isn't the answer, but he's managed to paint himself as something other than the political elite. And people are angry enough to go down the hell hole with him.

Your concerns are valid.
During the debate Mrs. Clinton said she will hold people at the Top responsible.

Bear in mind, the evidence from the Wells Fargo debacle was 'sealed' for five years.
Just this month questions are being asked and some people are taking action.

Elisabeth Warren may continue to work on that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJhkX74D10M
Men that make 300 million on the backs of working people tend to 'Look' good.
His hands must be as soft as a baby's butt.
Spoiler:
With that kind of money, I might look good.
Here is today's debate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQFGTDFvMSc

The one thing OrangeMan pounded home over and over,
He is very proud of himself.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Liri
Healthy non-floating pooper reporting for doodie.
Posts: 1113
Joined: Wed Oct 15, 2014 8:11 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Liri » Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:11 pm UTC

It looks like CNN is quite relieved by how well she did.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/27/politics/ ... index.html
The race must have gotten too close for comfort.

His takeaway might be to prepare better for the next, but it's a town hall style, pretty different from this one. They aren't supposed to really respond to each other in that one, are they?

E: it looks like they can
There's a certain amount of freedom involved in cycling: you're self-propelled and decide exactly where to go. If you see something that catches your eye to the left, you can veer off there, which isn't so easy in a car, and you can't cover as much ground walking.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:49 pm UTC

Early polls and focus groups seem to suggest Clinton "won" the debate with undecided voters.

Spoiler:
* 16 Clinton won vs 5 Trump won: Pennsylvania focus group. Watch the video, the group is clearly in favor of Clinton (despite not liking Clinton or her policies).

* 18 Clinton vs 2 Trump in CNN Florida focus group


I'm not surprised, but I am relieved. Because all is right in the world. IMO, Trump's performance is horrible but I just don't trust my own opinion on this matter any more.

On the other hand, Mitt Romney won the first debate in 2012.
Last edited by KnightExemplar on Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:14 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:52 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:Oh, tough policing is something either can support, and will if there's public support for it. And apparently, there is.

And we're *all* one step from being an ostracized group.

Are you referring to the second amendment, discrimination, or being white? Or maybe homo or trans groups rising up?

Couple hours before the debate. Here's the attacking points of each side. http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/you ... -politics/


Doesn't matter what, really. Everyone's a minority in *something*. Maybe you're an atheist. Maybe you've got a bit of some nationality that becomes unpopular. That can shift fairly quick, too. Maybe China is just considered vaguely an abstract threat now, and there's fairly little personal discrimination, but a geopolitical shift could upset that, and suddenly folks who only look as if they are of that descent have to deal with lots of crap. Maybe you have an accident at work, and you get to deal with people treating handicapped folks crappy.

Everyone should realize how easy it is to slip into an unpopular status.

As for the debate, I think they both roughly fulfilled expectations, and neither rose above that, nor underperformed, really. I don't expect the needle to really move as a result of this one.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5941
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Angua » Tue Sep 27, 2016 2:57 pm UTC

There's someone on facebook who is pretty triumphantly posting links to lots of polls including Time that all say people thought that Trump one (except for CNN).

I don't know how people measure these things so I have no idea how to tell.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:03 pm UTC

Eh, both sides will triumphantly declare their side as winning. This is mostly irrelevant. All that matters is how the polls move in response. Watch for the next week or so, and see how it shifts.

I don't see this one as a major upset, as it doesn't seem to significantly change how either candidate is perceived, so I don't expect the needle to move much.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:08 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Doesn't matter what, really. Everyone's a minority in *something*. Maybe you're an atheist. Maybe you've got a bit of some nationality that becomes unpopular. That can shift fairly quick, too. Maybe China is just considered vaguely an abstract threat now, and there's fairly little personal discrimination, but a geopolitical shift could upset that, and suddenly folks who only look as if they are of that descent have to deal with lots of crap. Maybe you have an accident at work, and you get to deal with people treating handicapped folks crappy.

Everyone should realize how easy it is to slip into an unpopular status.

As for the debate, I think they both roughly fulfilled expectations, and neither rose above that, nor underperformed, really. I don't expect the needle to really move as a result of this one.


I really thought Trump underperformed.

Clinton showed her weaknesses, but in a way that only the staunchest anti-Clintons would have seen them. Trump needed to hammer Clinton harder on her emails. All Trump did was say "I'll release my Tax Returns if Clinton Releases her Emails", which the typical voters will be wondering what the fuck the relationship is.

Remember: most people haven't been paying attention, tonight was the first night for the majority of Americans to see Trump vs Clinton. For those Americans, I'm not sure if Trump was able to create an equivalence between the Tax Returns and Clinton's Emails.

On the other hand, Clinton absolutely destroyed Trump on the Tax Returns issue. And instead of hitting Clinton back where she was weak (IE: trying it back to the emails thing), Trump just blabbered about how paying 0% taxes makes himself smart. He didn't even deny the outrageous claims that Clinton was making. Indeed, Trump seemed like an unapologetic tax-dodging billionare.

------------

The email thing is an issue where Trump could have easily gained the upper hand against Clinton. So I think the anti-Clinton crowd will see Clinton's mistakes here... but the way Clinton responded mitigated her mistakes (a simple apology that ended the discussion before too much was said about it) and aggravate Trump's mistakes.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6813
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby sardia » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:11 pm UTC

My concerns are if Clinton doesn't get a bounce from this, or if there bounce doesn't last till the election.
If she doesn't get the bounce, that means almost nothing Trump does will matter, voters want change.
If the bounce doesn't last, than Clinton is in trouble with a tied election. That means it doesn't really matter Trump sucks either. For a Democrat, it's probably a bad sign it she only gets a small boost.

Turns out evangelicals have rallied to Trump because of scotus, fear of non whites, and dislike(hatred?) of Hillary. Also that she's female. Trump went from 34 to 90 percent support. If you're wondering where the value in family values is, it's in Trump's promise for a conservative supreme Court.
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/eva ... umps-side/
Last edited by sardia on Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:15 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: 2016 US Presidential Election

Postby KnightExemplar » Tue Sep 27, 2016 3:12 pm UTC

sardia wrote:My concerns are if Clinton doesn't get a bounce from this, or if there bounce doesn't last till the election.
If she doesn't get the bounce, that means almost nothing Trump does will matter, voters want change.


The "bounces" don't matter because people aren't making decisions yet. Most people are undecided. Hell, there are two more debates after this.

Don't focus so much on the polls. People still don't know what they want to vote for.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests