Elections 2016 Presidential Election General Discussion v5

[Thepaintbucket]

Wake me up when Donald Trump talks about policies in a serious manner.

 

[machidafan99]

they are scum

 

[JadeOwl]

Wake me up when Donald Trump talks about policies in a serious manner.

Aiming to break Rip Van Winkle's record, are we?

 

[Diamond Jim]

 

[waiguoren]

What's the problem?

Chait's 2012 article is all about how he didn't personally accept the result of the 2000 election.

Then yesterday he wrote:

The debate culminated in Trump refusing to pledge that he would accept the outcome of the election — a statement of disloyalty to the American system of government without precedent since 1860, when Southern Democrats vowed to leave the union if the Republican Party prevailed.

He's having it both ways.

Also it's insane to call that a "statement of disloyalty to the American system of government without precedent since 1860." Gore did not accept the 2000 election result and started requesting manual recounts in multiple Florida counties.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Looking at the political preferences of those around me, I would not be the least bit surprised if the polls were way off this year.

View media item 24837

I'd think that you would know better than to think that that's in any way meaningful.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Chait's 2012 article is all about how he didn't personally accept the result of the 2000 election.

Then yesterday he wrote:

He's having it both ways.

Extremely different situations. Again (like your eight-person family sample), I had taken you as one of the smart right-wingers here. You should know better.

 

[waiguoren]

Extremely different situations. Again (like your eight-person family sample), I had taken you as one of the smart right-wingers here. You should know better.

Yes, extremely different situations and the principle holds all the same. You either accept the result or you don't. Chait didn't accept the 2000 result but attacks Trump for saying he might not accept the 2016 result.

Also it's a word game. What does "accept the result of the election" mean?

That's the crux of it. Trump is playing you and the media for the 900000th time. Who got all the press post-debate?

 

[waiguoren]

I'd think that you would know better than to think that that's in any way meaningful.

I would expect you to be more careful in your reading of what I wrote. I am talking about imagination here. I can imagine that the LV models are off. Unlike all the lefties here who would be shocked *SHOCKED* if Trump won, I would not be at all. Obama was a special candidate and to think that turnout patterns will be similar to 2008,2012 is a stretch.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yes, extremely different situations and the principle holds all the same. You either accept the result or you don't. Chait didn't accept the 2000 result but attacks Trump for saying he might not accept the 2016 result.

Chait did accept the result. When the race was close enough to call for a recall, he supported one. When the case was decided, he thought it was bullshit, but he moved on. And (much) more importantly, Gore did the same.

Also it's a word game. What does "accept the result of the election" mean?

That's the crux of it. Trump is playing you and the media for the 900000th time. Who got all the press post-debate?

Trump isn't playing anyone unless you really think he's just running because he likes attention and doesn't want to fade into cultural irrelevance. He attacked one of the key principles of our nation so people talk about it, but it's not helping him.

I would expect you to be more careful in your reading of what I wrote. I am talking about imagination here. I can imagine that the LV models are off. Unlike all the lefties here who would be shocked *SHOCKED* if Trump won, I would not be at all. Obama was a special candidate and to think that turnout patterns will be similar to 2008,2012 is a stretch.

It's not just lefties. Any reasonable person would be shocked if Trump won unless polls show a huge surge in his support. I think Clinton is unlikely to be the caliber of president that Obama is (one of the best ever), but as a candidate there isn't a huge difference. I'd weakly expect Clinton to outperform polls because of her superior turnout operation.

 

[waiguoren]

Chait did accept the result. When the race was close enough to call for a recall, he supported one.

To many people, these two statements are contradictory.

Trump isn't playing anyone unless you really think he's just running because he likes attention and doesn't want to fade into cultural irrelevance.

Trump lives by the principle that there is no such thing as bad press. So far it has worked well for him. People freak out for a little while, his numbers go down, then he rebounds. It has happened over and over again.

 

[waiguoren]

I'd think that you would know better than to think that that's in any way meaningful.

I really think this a point that has to be driven home. I would never say that such findings are in any way statistically significant or that they can be in any way applied to the population at large. But to say they aren't "meaningful" is absurd. Human progess depends on imagination. You need to be able to imagine scenarios like decreased Democratic turnout, and your personal experience should help you to imagine such scenarios.

By the way, Trump's numbers look a lot better when you weight polls by the accuracy of 2012 polls.

 

[Metusalemi]

Trump lives by the principle that there is no such thing as bad press.

He is going all-in with that principle and the press love him for it.

Trump is the click-bait candidate the media has dreamed about.

 

[waiguoren]

He is going all-in with that principle and the press love him for it.

Trump is the click-bait candidate the media has dreamed about.

He has exploited a peculiar aspect of human psychology: the desire for familiarity. As long as he stays in the press, people get used to him. People prefer the familiar. That's a big part of the reason his numbers have a solid floor below them.

 

[Jack V Savage]

To many people, these two statements are contradictory.

To people who are unable to identify their own motivated reasoning or who are unable to get their minds around distinctions that aren't extremely broad. There are a lot of such people.

Trump lives by the principle that there is no such thing as bad press. So far it has worked well for him. People freak out for a little while, his numbers go down, then he rebounds. It has happened over and over again.

Well, he's doing great with that so far.

 

[waiguoren]

To people who are unable to identify their own motivated reasoning or who are unable to get their minds around distinctions that aren't extremely broad. There are a lot of such people.



Well, he's doing great with that so far.

Never got an answer from you regarding our bet.

 

[waiguoren]

To people who are unable to identify their own motivated reasoning or who are unable to get their minds around distinctions that aren't extremely broad.

Break it down for me. You have one guy who writes an article 12 years after an election to say that it was stolen. You claim this guy has "accepted the result" of the election. To most with average or above average use of language, that's just a bizarre conclusion.

I guess you would also say Gore "accepted" the result in 2000 despite filing paperwork for multiple recounts.

And then you and others say Trump is threatening our country by dangling out the possibility he won't "accept the result" of an election, even though he never explained what he meant by that (as with most things) and 90% of the ascribed meaning came from left-wing attack dogs and Bill Kristol like crybabies.

 

[BAM]

I got trolled by at least 5 Australian coworkers today about Donald Trump's debate because I'm American, as if I'm supposed to defend the retard.

 

[7437]

I got trolled by at least 5 Australian coworkers today about Donald Trump's debate because I'm American, as if I'm supposed to defend the retard.

Get an orange spray tan, that will show them

 

[Jack V Savage]

Break it down for me. You have one guy who writes an article 12 years after an election to say that it was stolen. You claim this guy has "accepted the result" of the election. To most with average or above average use of language, that's just a bizarre conclusion.

Below average, you mean. I mean, if you don't see a difference between "if I lose, the election is rigged, and I might not concede, and thus will threaten the very idea of a peaceful contest for power conducted democratically" and "the SCOTUS made a bad, politically motivated decision in 2000," what can I tell you?

I guess you would also say Gore "accepted" the result in 2000 despite filing paperwork for multiple recounts.

Recounts are standard when the election is extremely close. That is not outside the process but part of it. When the SCOTUS made its decision, that was it for Gore. Had it not been, he would also have been threatening the process.

And then you and others say Trump is threatening our country by dangling out the possibility he won't "accept the result" of an election, even though he never explained what he meant by that (as with most things) and 90% of the ascribed meaning came from left-wing attack dogs and Bill Kristol like crybabies.

I think this is disingenuous. Trump has said that the election is "rigged." He's called for his supporters to hang around ballot places (note that they are already very effectively monitored through legal channels). He's clearly implying the meaning that everyone is taking--that he will not concede following his likely big loss because that loss will be evidence of rigging.

Never got an answer from you regarding our bet.

I figured that you and cooks' thing superseded it. I offered to go half on it (meaning you'd take the same hit, but I could divide 50/50 with cooks on the time). No response so I figured no interest.