2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

4,051 to 4,100 of 7,079 << first < prev | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Apropos of nothing except that this is a politics thread, just voted as an expat for the first time. Feels a little weird, but good!


CrusaderWolf wrote:
Apropos of nothing except that this is a politics thread, just voted as an expat for the first time. Feels a little weird, but good!

Are you an expat to a properly romantic exotic locale, like Paris?


Turin the Mad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

20th April, 2016 article: Sunset the Tax Code end of year 2019.

Looks like the bill would (have) force(d) the issue of tax code reform.

That's an insane approach. We've seen in recent years how well Congress has responded to such forced deadlines - budget shutdowns, debt ceilings, short term extensions, etc. How would businesses deal with the uncertainty of "well, theoretically there will be no taxes at all next year, but we suspect they'll pass something, probably at the last minute, but it could be anything"?

It's a recipe for chaos. By far the likeliest outcome is a series of short term extensions of the current code, like we've seen with other deadlines.

If you want "tax reform", whatever you mean by that, work to elect people who want the same thing and lobby for it. Don't rely on destructive gimmicks like this.

Luckily, even this Congress is sane enough not to take this bill seriously.

131-odd members of this Congress co-sponsored the bill from the looks of that article. ;)

Scary isn't it? 131 Congresscritters willing to put a gun to their (and everyone else's) heads. Luckily 131 is less than a third of the House, so it's not going anywhere.

Most of them are probably just posturing, since they know it'll never happen.

Because it's seriously insane. You're a small businessman, right? Would you like to be sitting in December of 2019 with a fight in Congress and absolutely no idea what tax structure you'd be dealing with next year? No way to plan. No clue what rates would be, what could be deducted, what expenses counted, nothing.


Given that the overwhelming majority of the people supporting that tax code law are Republicans, my guess is that they are hoping to use it to just screw up the taxes, and not create a more fair code. A lot of tea party folks actually look upon the all the budget hold ups and extensions as something positive. They DON'T want government to work.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Are you an expat to a properly romantic exotic locale, like Paris?

I'm in a suburb outside Hamburg. So it's consistently overcast and rainy...which beats the snot out of Paris :p


thejeff wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Turin the Mad wrote:

20th April, 2016 article: Sunset the Tax Code end of year 2019.

Looks like the bill would (have) force(d) the issue of tax code reform.

That's an insane approach. We've seen in recent years how well Congress has responded to such forced deadlines - budget shutdowns, debt ceilings, short term extensions, etc. How would businesses deal with the uncertainty of "well, theoretically there will be no taxes at all next year, but we suspect they'll pass something, probably at the last minute, but it could be anything"?

It's a recipe for chaos. By far the likeliest outcome is a series of short term extensions of the current code, like we've seen with other deadlines.

If you want "tax reform", whatever you mean by that, work to elect people who want the same thing and lobby for it. Don't rely on destructive gimmicks like this.

Luckily, even this Congress is sane enough not to take this bill seriously.

131-odd members of this Congress co-sponsored the bill from the looks of that article. ;)

Scary isn't it? 131 Congresscritters willing to put a gun to their (and everyone else's) heads. Luckily 131 is less than a third of the House, so it's not going anywhere.

Most of them are probably just posturing, since they know it'll never happen.

Because it's seriously insane. You're a small businessman, right? Would you like to be sitting in December of 2019 with a fight in Congress and absolutely no idea what tax structure you'd be dealing with next year? No way to plan. No clue what rates would be, what could be deducted, what expenses counted, nothing.

Under the posited circumstances, yeah, that'd definitely be insane.

Posturing bills like these appear to get proposed fairly often.

Please note that I have not said that they should do this. Merely found it interesting that such a proposal was recently floated in the bowl for consideration.


MMCJawa wrote:
Given that the overwhelming majority of the people supporting that tax code law are Republicans, my guess is that they are hoping to use it to just screw up the taxes, and not create a more fair code. A lot of tea party folks actually look upon the all the budget hold ups and extensions as something positive. They DON'T want government to work.

Depends on which ones you see/hear/talk to. Budget hold-ups hereabouts inside and outside the Beltway are heavily despised by the vast numbers that have to deal with these idiotic slobberknockers over the federal budget year in and year out.

Sovereign Court

CrusaderWolf wrote:
Apropos of nothing except that this is a politics thread, just voted as an expat for the first time. Feels a little weird, but good!

Congrats on voting, too bad you didn't have better choices, but maybe things will better next election.


Turin the Mad wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:
Given that the overwhelming majority of the people supporting that tax code law are Republicans, my guess is that they are hoping to use it to just screw up the taxes, and not create a more fair code. A lot of tea party folks actually look upon the all the budget hold ups and extensions as something positive. They DON'T want government to work.
Depends on which ones you see/hear/talk to. Budget hold-ups hereabouts inside and outside the Beltway are heavily despised by the vast numbers that have to deal with these idiotic slobberknockers over the federal budget year in and year out.

Of course, most of the Idiotic slobberknockers aren't actually affiliated with the Beltway in any meaningful way. Rep. McKinley of West Virginia represents the closest district, geographically, to DC among the Tea Party Caucus. It's very easy to be anti-DC (and indeed, anti-Beltway) when few if any of your constituents are affiliated with government contracting.


Kobold Cleaver wrote:
It seems like Comrade Anklebiter should be in this conversation, instead of posting huge strings of links about Clinton in the other thread. A conversation about socialism feels empty without him. :P

What, you want more anti-Clinton links in here? Okay.

Alas, my free articles at The Nation has run out, so I can't read this one quite yet, but, hopefully, once October comes around I'll be able to:

Nothing About the 1994 Crime Bill Was Unintentional

Until then, I'll have to settle for an article in The Guardian by Thomas Frank, the author of What's the Matter With Kansas? How Conservatives Won the Heart of America and the more recent Listen, Liberal: Or, Whatever Happened to the Party of the People? which I should check out of the library:

Bill Clinton's crime bill destroyed lives, and there's no point denying it

Interesting part:

"Today we are told that mass incarceration was an 'unintended consequence' of Clinton’s deeds.

"For that to be true, however, Clinton would have not only had to ignore the Sentencing Commission’s findings but also to ignore the newspaper stories appearing all around him, which can be found easily on the internet to this day. Here’s one that appeared in the Baltimore Sun on 31 October 1995, in which it is noted that:

"'Civil rights organizations had led a telephone campaign to pressure the president to veto the bill. At a rally last week in Chicago, the Rev Jesse L Jackson said that Mr Clinton had the chance, "with one stroke of your veto pen, to correct the most grievous racial injustice built into our legal system."'"

So much for historical revisionism.


Sooooo... you hope for Trump then? :)


No. I think it was in this thread above, somewhere, but I hope for a Clinton victory because, I think, when she disappoints all her rad-lib, lesser-evil voters, it will lead to a further radicalization of the fast-food strikers, police abolitionists, Native American water defenders, etc., I've been running with and give us on the Far Left a chance to grow at least as big as we were in the sixties.

But I still hate her and I ain't voting for her.

Actually, come to think of it, I blame Bernie for all this shiznit. If he hadn't run and churned up all these social-democratic Democrat voters, I wouldn't have to run around handing out Jill Stein bumper stickers and could just make "Voting is for ninnies! For workers revolution!" posts like I did in 2012.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

No. I think it was in this thread above, somewhere, but I hope for a Clinton victory because, I think, when she disappoints all her rad-lib, lesser-evil voters, it will lead to a further radicalization of the fast-food strikers, police abolitionists, Native American water defenders, etc., I've been running with and give us on the Far Left a chance to grow at least as big as we were in the sixties.

But I still hate her and I ain't voting for her.

Actually, come to think of it, I blame Bernie for all this shiznit. If he hadn't run and churned up all these social-democratic Democrat voters, I wouldn't have to run around handing out Jill Stein bumper stickers and could just make "Voting is for ninnies! For workers revolution!" posts like I did in 2012.

Given the alternative, how is anything you described in the first paragraph Clinton-victory dependent?


If Trump wins, all the movements will regress to "get out the vote for the Democrats."

Unrelated, in a previous post, I mentioned how all the articles I had looked up indicated that Hillary "lobbied liberal lawmakers" to support the Omnibus Crime Bill. I haven't found evidence yet, but I like to imagine that Hillary went knocking on the Vermont Senator's office door to get Bernie to vote for that execrable law.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Something to piss off Comrade AB and Freehold


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

No. I think it was in this thread above, somewhere, but I hope for a Clinton victory because, I think, when she disappoints all her rad-lib, lesser-evil voters, it will lead to a further radicalization of the fast-food strikers, police abolitionists, Native American water defenders, etc., I've been running with and give us on the Far Left a chance to grow at least as big as we were in the sixties.

But I still hate her and I ain't voting for her.

Actually, come to think of it, I blame Bernie for all this shiznit. If he hadn't run and churned up all these social-democratic Democrat voters, I wouldn't have to run around handing out Jill Stein bumper stickers and could just make "Voting is for ninnies! For workers revolution!" posts like I did in 2012.

So are you hoping that the Democrat party in response will shift more to the left, or that the left leaning third parties could pick up those disgruntled folks?

Because I could see the former but don't see the latter happening.


Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

No. I think it was in this thread above, somewhere, but I hope for a Clinton victory because, I think, when she disappoints all her rad-lib, lesser-evil voters, it will lead to a further radicalization of the fast-food strikers, police abolitionists, Native American water defenders, etc., I've been running with and give us on the Far Left a chance to grow at least as big as we were in the sixties.

You weren't "big" in the Sixties at all. You picked up some spoiled bored rich white suburban kids looking for novel ways to rebel against their parents, who grew up to become the David Stockmans of the 80's.

Background note: David Stockman one of the founders of the modern neocon movement, was a member of Students for a Democratic Society back in those days, a prominent leftist radical group full of the types I mentioned above.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

No. I think it was in this thread above, somewhere, but I hope for a Clinton victory because, I think, when she disappoints all her rad-lib, lesser-evil voters, it will lead to a further radicalization of the fast-food strikers, police abolitionists, Native American water defenders, etc., I've been running with and give us on the Far Left a chance to grow at least as big as we were in the sixties.

But I still hate her and I ain't voting for her.

Seems like a pointless statement. If you want someone to win, hold your nose and vote for them. It's not like anyone will know who you voted for—you aren't making any sort of grand statement either way.

Anyways, I actually meant you should be contributing to the conversation about socialism that was in this chat a while back. Seems a lot more productive than grousing about an election you aren't voting in.

EDIT: ^See? This is what I feel like you should be responding to. Taking bets now on how long it'll take for someone to complain about "entitled millennials".


3 people marked this as a favorite.

[broken record] I would think that if the Left are pushing for truly progressive change in the U.S., a Clinton presidency would be a much better foundation to build on than a Trump/Pence presidency. [/broken record]


Clinton would be more likely to nominate a liberal justice and this could have an astounding impact on the next 20 years.


Irontruth wrote:
Clinton would be more likely to nominate a liberal justice and this could have an astounding impact on the next 20 years.

That's assuming of course, the Republicans don't stall until they recapture the majorities in 2018. Then they can launch impeachment proceedings.


Impeachment requires a 2/3's of the senate for conviction. I would expect Republicans to win back a couple seats, but doubtful they'll have enough to sustain an impeachment.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Clinton would be more likely to nominate a liberal justice and this could have an astounding impact on the next 20 years.
That's assuming of course, the Republicans don't stall until they recapture the majorities in 2018. Then they can launch impeachment proceedings.

If they don't hold a majority in the Senate I don't think they'll be able to stall. With control of the agenda, they can just not schedule confirmation votes. In theory, they could filibuster, but if they filibuster a reasonable nominee for no better reason than "We're not going to let a Democrat appoint Justices", the filibuster rules will be changed out from under them. That can't stand. And enough Republican Senators know it that Democrats will be able to peel off cloture votes.

Even with a majority, I doubt they'll be willing or able to stall indefinitely. not without the figleaf of "lame duck president". It's possible though, they've surprised me before.

Impeachment isn't going to happen. Not without some actual significant new crime to work from. Certainly not a conviction in the senate - 67 votes on a purely partisan impeachment? We haven't seen dominance on that scale since the 60s. Nor would impeachment actually switch the White House, unless they impeach Kaine too. At some point, that kind of abuse of political power has to backfire.


Irontruth wrote:
Impeachment requires a 2/3's of the senate for conviction. I would expect Republicans to win back a couple seats, but doubtful they'll have enough to sustain an impeachment.

2018 is likely to see another mass invasion of Republicans in Congress.

Liberty's Edge

Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
No. I think it was in this thread above, somewhere, but I hope for a Clinton victory because, I think, when she disappoints all her rad-lib, lesser-evil voters, it will lead to a further radicalization of the fast-food strikers, police abolitionists, Native American water defenders, etc., I've been running with and give us on the Far Left a chance to grow at least as big as we were in the sixties.

Actually, I think that if she wins, this possible Far Left growth will only make Democrats weaker against a reinvigorated Republican Party that will rise form the ashes of Trump's defeat.

No Far Left electoral victory in view. Ever

Liberty's Edge

The Raven Black wrote:
No Far Left electoral victory in view. Ever

As someone who most would consider 'far left'... I hope more for the decimation of the insane right than the election of a far left president.

Basically, I'm ok with Clinton/Obama style 'slow progress with some steps in the wrong direction along the way'. It is the absolute stupidity that happens when the GOP effectively controls all three branches of government that I don't think we can take much more of.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Impeachment requires a 2/3's of the senate for conviction. I would expect Republicans to win back a couple seats, but doubtful they'll have enough to sustain an impeachment.
2018 is likely to see another mass invasion of Republicans in Congress.

There hasn't been a "mass invasion" enough for a 2/3rds majority in more than 50 years. Even then, it wasn't that dramatic a change.

A Republican majority after 2018 is likely.
A filibuster proof majority is possible, but unlikely.
A two-thirds is theoretically possible, but would require a Republican wave well beyond what happened in 2010.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Impeachment requires a 2/3's of the senate for conviction. I would expect Republicans to win back a couple seats, but doubtful they'll have enough to sustain an impeachment.
2018 is likely to see another mass invasion of Republicans in Congress.

Odds are they'll pick up 6-9 seats. Right now it's 54-44 in the senate. Over the next two elections, the GOP would need to pick up 13 seats to get their 2/3's majority. It's very likely that Dems will pick up 3-5 seats this election, meaning that the GOP will need 16-18 in 2018. A 15 seat swing in one election is HIGHLY unlikely.

Neither party has held a 2/3's majority since 1967.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
[broken record] I would think that if the Left are pushing for truly progressive change in the U.S., a Clinton presidency would be a much better foundation to build on than a Trump/Pence presidency. [/broken record]

I mean, look at recent events. Did Bush drive us to the left, as Nader supporters hoped? Nope. We ended up with Obama v. Clinton—two political moderates.

Doodlebug is right about one thing. Eight years of gridlock with a moderate Democrat has done more to energize the far-right and discredit incrementalism than eight years with Bush ever did. Because we got to see what actually happens when you try left-wing incrementalism in this current age of a hyperpolarized right-wing.

Four or eight years of Trump will just let moderate Democrats say, "See? We aren't as bad as those guys! We're basically the radical left by his standards."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Raven Black wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:
No. I think it was in this thread above, somewhere, but I hope for a Clinton victory because, I think, when she disappoints all her rad-lib, lesser-evil voters, it will lead to a further radicalization of the fast-food strikers, police abolitionists, Native American water defenders, etc., I've been running with and give us on the Far Left a chance to grow at least as big as we were in the sixties.

Actually, I think that if she wins, this possible Far Left growth will only make Democrats weaker against a reinvigorated Republican Party that will rise form the ashes of Trump's defeat.

No Far Left electoral victory in view. Ever

This pretty much.

Although I am not sure if 2020 will see much improvement/rebuilding from the current Trump. The current hardcore Red states are pretty locked into their current politics and voter base, that any major shift or change in direction might not go over well in the base. Trumps a low point for the party but I am not convinced they have reached bottom, or more importantly the party and voter base as a whole has.


Irontruth wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Impeachment requires a 2/3's of the senate for conviction. I would expect Republicans to win back a couple seats, but doubtful they'll have enough to sustain an impeachment.
2018 is likely to see another mass invasion of Republicans in Congress.

Odds are they'll pick up 6-9 seats. Right now it's 54-44 in the senate. Over the next two elections, the GOP would need to pick up 13 seats to get their 2/3's majority. It's very likely that Dems will pick up 3-5 seats this election, meaning that the GOP will need 16-18 in 2018. A 15 seat swing in one election is HIGHLY unlikely.

Neither party has held a 2/3's majority since 1967.

I would be very surprised if the Democrats picked up more than one seat. Clinton's campaign strategy is not only not helping the down ticket, but may be further damaging it with her "A vote for anyone other than me is a vote for Trump" theme. In fact, she does not seem to be doing ANY campaigning for the down tickets.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Impeachment requires a 2/3's of the senate for conviction. I would expect Republicans to win back a couple seats, but doubtful they'll have enough to sustain an impeachment.
2018 is likely to see another mass invasion of Republicans in Congress.

Odds are they'll pick up 6-9 seats. Right now it's 54-44 in the senate. Over the next two elections, the GOP would need to pick up 13 seats to get their 2/3's majority. It's very likely that Dems will pick up 3-5 seats this election, meaning that the GOP will need 16-18 in 2018. A 15 seat swing in one election is HIGHLY unlikely.

Neither party has held a 2/3's majority since 1967.

I would be very surprised if the Democrats picked up more than one seat. Clinton's campaign strategy is not only not helping the down ticket, but may be further damaging it with her "A vote for anyone other than me is a vote for Trump" theme. In fact, she does not seem to be doing ANY campaigning for the down tickets.

Yeah, we know. You think Clinton's a complete disaster. Are you still predicting she'll lose?

Odds of taking the Senate have dropped to around 50/50, from most projections I've seen. With a little movement upwards in the last couple days, but too soon to say if that's a trend or just a bobble.

Owner - Gator Games & Hobby

Since the polls for senators have been pretty strongly correlated with their presidential counterparts (hail polarization), if Hillary's post-debate bump in the polls persists, then the Dems taking the senate is looking increasingly likely.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I've decided that reading political posts works better when you're listening to ...And Justice For All.


Headbanging while simultaneously doing the Clinton shoulder shimmy is the new pat-your-head-rub-your-stomach test.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Pillbug,

Not sure that's true. But I can at least attest that headbanging while screaming the lyrics to Creeping Death does make me feel better. Especially with politics.


But all the kids are doing it. You want to be young and accepted and laugh in the face of your own mortality, right?

Good. Now, here, try to eat this 1/2 cup of cinnamon...


thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Irontruth wrote:
Impeachment requires a 2/3's of the senate for conviction. I would expect Republicans to win back a couple seats, but doubtful they'll have enough to sustain an impeachment.
2018 is likely to see another mass invasion of Republicans in Congress.

Odds are they'll pick up 6-9 seats. Right now it's 54-44 in the senate. Over the next two elections, the GOP would need to pick up 13 seats to get their 2/3's majority. It's very likely that Dems will pick up 3-5 seats this election, meaning that the GOP will need 16-18 in 2018. A 15 seat swing in one election is HIGHLY unlikely.

Neither party has held a 2/3's majority since 1967.

I would be very surprised if the Democrats picked up more than one seat. Clinton's campaign strategy is not only not helping the down ticket, but may be further damaging it with her "A vote for anyone other than me is a vote for Trump" theme. In fact, she does not seem to be doing ANY campaigning for the down tickets.

Yeah, we know. You think Clinton's a complete disaster. Are you still predicting she'll lose?

Odds of taking the Senate have dropped to around 50/50, from most projections I've seen. With a little movement upwards in the last couple days, but too soon to say if that's a trend or just a bobble.

Are you that certain she'll win? Between the closeness of the polls, new voter suppression initiatives from Republican-run statehouses, and and some possible hacking of the election itself, I'd say that it's a tossup and no amount of stunning debate performances by Clinton, nor endorsements by Republican run newspapers that no one reads is going nail it for her. And who knows, maybe Julian Assange is holding onto some new juicy bit that he's biding his time on waiting for a perfect moment to damage her numbers some more using his Wikileaks material.

Word just came out that 30 percent of Las Vegas Latinos are voting for Trump, when most of us were convinced that the real number was going to be close to zero. That may be yet another indication of how this election does not fit standard predictors.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:

But all the kids are doing it. You want to be young and accepted and laugh in the face of your own mortality, right?

Good. Now, here, try to eat this 1/2 cup of cinnamon...

Why is that supposed to be a challenge?

*sprinkles on oatmeal rasin cookies. Noms down. follows with a gallon of milk challenge*


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:

Are you that certain she'll win? Between the closeness of the polls, new voter suppression initiatives from Republican-run statehouses, and and some possible hacking of the election itself, I'd say that it's a tossup and no amount of stunning debate performances by Clinton, nor endorsements by Republican run newspapers that no one reads is going nail it for her. And who knows, maybe Julian Assange is holding onto some new juicy bit that he's biding his time on waiting for a perfect moment to damage her numbers some more using his Wikileaks material.

Word just came out that 30 percent of Las Vegas Latinos are voting for Trump, when most of us were convinced that the real number was going to be close to zero. That may be yet another indication of how this election does not fit standard predictors.

Certain? No. Nothing in politics is certain. Her chances are much better than a tossup. Better, for example, than Obama's looked at this point in 2012.

As for that Latino poll, sketchy at best. Really small sample size of Latinos. Possible it's the start of a trend. Possible it's an outlier. Possible it's just bad. Don't panic over single polls. Watch trends and averages.
That said, we've never seen 0% for Trump among Latinos. In Nevada 15-20 seems have been more common.

As I've said before, for all the talk of how this election is different and can't be predicted by polls and data, the data was pretty much on the money for the primaries, it's just that no one wanted to believe it. And the general is following the expected trends - Trump wrapped up the nomination first and got a bump from that, Clinton recovered after she wrapped up her nomination. When Trump's convention was horrible, he got little from it. Clinton's went very well, so she got a big bump, but the race tightened, as races do. She had a great debate performance, while he thrashed - bump in the polls. It'll fade, probably when he stops throwing gas on the fire. Assuming the other debates follow the pattern, she'll get a boost again, though probably a smaller one. In between, the race will tighten.
In the end, most likely, but not certainly, she'll win. It'll be pretty close, not miles off from the polls.


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:

But all the kids are doing it. You want to be young and accepted and laugh in the face of your own mortality, right?

Good. Now, here, try to eat this 1/2 cup of cinnamon...

Only if you put it on dough and make it into cinnamon rolls. :p ;)


Making history:
Detroit News Endorses Johnson


thejeff wrote:


As I've said before, for all the talk of how this election is different and can't be predicted by polls and data, the data was pretty much on the money for the primaries, it's just that no one wanted to believe it. And the general is following the expected trends - Trump wrapped up the nomination first and got a bump from that, Clinton recovered after she wrapped up her nomination. When Trump's convention was horrible, he got little from it. Clinton's went very well, so she got a big bump, but the race tightened, as races do. She had a great debate performance, while he thrashed - bump in the polls. It'll fade,...

Trump didn't get a convention bump, or if he did, it was very small.

Of course, part of the reason for this is that the conventions are so close together now and the polls have been really erratic this cycle (they do have predictive power, but what they're predicting changes week to week).

I agree with you that the polls are the best predictor to watch, but until they settle down (if they ever do), we're not going to know for sure what they're saying.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kobold Cleaver wrote:
Comrade Anklebiter wrote:

No. I think it was in this thread above, somewhere, but I hope for a Clinton victory because, I think, when she disappoints all her rad-lib, lesser-evil voters, it will lead to a further radicalization of the fast-food strikers, police abolitionists, Native American water defenders, etc., I've been running with and give us on the Far Left a chance to grow at least as big as we were in the sixties.

But I still hate her and I ain't voting for her.

Anyways, I actually meant you should be contributing to the conversation about socialism that was in this chat a while back. Seems a lot more productive than grousing about an election you aren't voting in.

Comrade AB must limit his posting. Otherwise, the surplus value of his posting labor will be exploited by the Web 2.0 bourgeois. #justchristianfuchsthings


Irontruth wrote:
thejeff wrote:


As I've said before, for all the talk of how this election is different and can't be predicted by polls and data, the data was pretty much on the money for the primaries, it's just that no one wanted to believe it. And the general is following the expected trends - Trump wrapped up the nomination first and got a bump from that, Clinton recovered after she wrapped up her nomination. When Trump's convention was horrible, he got little from it. Clinton's went very well, so she got a big bump, but the race tightened, as races do. She had a great debate performance, while he thrashed - bump in the polls. It'll fade,...

Trump didn't get a convention bump, or if he did, it was very small.

Of course, part of the reason for this is that the conventions are so close together now and the polls have been really erratic this cycle (they do have predictive power, but what they're predicting changes week to week).

I agree with you that the polls are the best predictor to watch, but until they settle down (if they ever do), we're not going to know for sure what they're saying.

He didn't get a bump mostly because the convention was awful - he was making excuses for it when it was over - "I just showed up and made a speech".

And sure, polls move around and you can't be sure, but that's always true. It's in fairly predictable ways - something causes a bump and then the bump fades back towards the baseline.
Mostly though I'm just pushing against the idea that this election is a special snowflake and somehow Trump's going to defy the polling.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Of course the free market idea get's tossed out when it goes against business.

"Americans don't want to pick fruit so i have to hire illegal immigrants.

"You mean Americans don't want to pick fruit for 4 dollars an hour and have to work hard enough and dangerously enough to meet your quota's for the amount you're paying?

For what it's worth, when I was picking fruit mid-recession I got $10/hr. I think MA minimum wage was $8 at that time.

Now, Massachusetts is certainly not the breadbasket of the nation, so I'm not sure this anecdotal price point really is worth much, compared to, say, the prevailing agricultural wage in California.


thejeff wrote:
the data was pretty much on the money for the primaries

Except for those times they were off by more than 8 points. Or that one time they were off by 20 points...

And I think it is fair to point out that they were never off in Bernie's favor. It is safe to assume that there is (to some degree) a Clinton bias in the polls.

I'm not saying the polls are flat wrong, but I don't feel secure that Clinton will take office with only a 2-3 point lead heading into October.


Individual exceptions do not negate the value of monitoring a trend.


Rednal wrote:
Individual exceptions do not negate the value of monitoring a trend.

The trend overall for polls is they are getting worse and worse over the last 20 years.


BigDTBone wrote:
thejeff wrote:
the data was pretty much on the money for the primaries
Except for those times they were off by more than 8 points. Or that one time they were off by 20 points...

Exactly what Rednal said. Polling and other data were pointing to Trump and Clinton as the clear winners early on. They didn't get all states right, but they got the outcome.

That happens in every election cycle. This one isn't some mysterious exception that's immune to polling.
Look at averages and trends, not individual polls.

4,051 to 4,100 of 7,079 << first < prev | 77 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards