Elections 2016 Presidential Election General Discussion v5

Who are you voting for in the 2016 Presidential Election?


  • Total voters
    102
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
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?

No, it is not the same principle.

There is a abysmal difference between questioning the counting in a specific state after the election has taken place and there is something to complain about and doubting the validity of the entire election a priori without a single shred of evidence.

One is valid. The other is dangerous and undemocratic.
 
No. It's only my political opposition. They are all bad. Watch this video, it shows one being bad. So my political beliefs are validated.

90% of all war room posts right there.

They're not my opposition, I'm not a conservative...

I mentioned that like 10 times in the post to avoid folks like you... It still didn't help.
 
Below average, you mean. "I might not concede, and thus will threaten the very idea of a peaceful contest for power conducted democratically"

When did he say that? I think you are putting your own spin on his comments.
 
And what evidence do you have that this is what Trump was saying?

His own words. Spoken from his own mouth.

I know that's a category that usually consists of utter bullshit, but we have to start somewhere.
 
I figured that you and cooks' thing superseded it.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.

Let's make it a separate bet. If on Thursday morning, RCP average is <+6.4 Clinton, I win. >6.4 and you win. = is a push. Sigbet for a year.
 
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.
Check your history. Gore was requesting individual county recounts after the standard machine recounts gave Bush a 300-something vote lead.
 
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).

Sanders used the same terminology and he got damn far with it. It is an effective tactic in an anti-establishment election year.

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.

This is only "clear" to those who already believed it or who believe whatever the talking heads say.
 
Let's make it a separate bet. If on Thursday morning, RCP average is <+6.4 Clinton, I win. >6.4 and you win. = is a push. Sigbet for a year.

I'd put my odds of losing that at like 25%. I don't want to bet my sig for a year on something like that. Ed: Also, how can you bet me a year when have a longer-term bet with cooks going at the same time?

Sanders used the same terminology and he got damn far with it. It is an effective tactic in an anti-establishment election year.

I don't know what an "anti-establishment election year" means. I suspect it means whatever the speaker wants it to mean. If you're talking purely about the political establishment, note that the most popular politician in America, by far, is the sitting president, primaried incumbents did better than usual, and the selected successor to the sitting president is likely to win by a big margin (and did win the primary by a big margin). It's not like people are itching for some huge change.

I would agree that Sanders' comments were also destructive to our democracy and reasonably effective.

This is only "clear" to those who already believed it or who believe whatever the talking heads say.

Trump himself is clearly trying to convey the meaning that everyone but you (anyone else?) got from his comments.
 
Last edited:
My story? In the basic and immediate, am a serial entrepreneur and will always be. I am presently scaled way back while I deal with a health matter and raising/educating my two kids of 3 and 5 years old. Once my daughter is in pre-school I will ramp up operations with my current business and be pulling in about $225 first year back. From there many more businesses will follow...again.

I should also mention that I typically don't post in a heated manner as I have above. Let's just say its been a stressful week, and that post does not reflect well on me.


You are not an American are you? I liked your post but I don't consider myself what you would call a pleb... just clearing that up. I think most Trump supporters are labeled as such when many of them are educated and pretty well off .
 
I'd put my odds of losing that at like 25%. I don't want to bet my sig for a year on something like that.


Cooks actually agreed to a 4 years on that bet :eek:

Its a very interesting situation though. Trump may provoke many people to come out and vote against him... people who otherwise would not have come out to vote if he was just a run of the mill republican candidate.

Then there's Republican voters who would have supported a run of the mill republican candidate but may stay home because they dislike Trump.

Lastly Trump seems to have the most vocal supporters, but not sure how many of them are the type to actually go out and vote. Especially since his numbers are down, they may feel like he will lose anyway and stay home.

Hard to say what will happen, but honestly these silly bets do make it interesting.
 
Almost all Muslims, illegal immigrants, fringe-social-issue-persons and celebrities hate Trump.

Yes they vote for their own interests. I call it an underdeveloped super-ego, which is really a lack of care/appreciation for the establishment (people, traditions, values, property). IMO.
 
Cooks actually agreed to a 4 years on that bet :eek:

Its a very interesting situation though. Trump may provoke many people to come out and vote against him... people who otherwise would not have come out to vote if he was just a run of the mill republican candidate.

Then there's Republican voters who would have supported a run of the mill republican candidate but may stay home because they dislike Trump.

Lastly Trump seems to have the most vocal supporters, but not sure how many of them are the type to actually go out and vote. Especially since his numbers are down, they may feel like he will lose anyway and stay home.

Hard to say what will happen, but honestly these silly bets do make it interesting.

Wai was talking about next Thursday, though. I think cooks' odds of winning their actual bet is higher than 75%.

And I think the polls and screens mostly reflect the issues you mention. What I think is not reflected is Clinton's superior "ground game" (especially now that Trump will be scrambling to replace the guy who was running that for him), general superiority as a candidate (meaning additional news will more likely help her than him), and Trump and other similar candidate's tendency to underperform for reasons I don't quite grasp. On the other hand, I do worry that Trump's numbers are *too* bad now to be sustainable. What they show is that a lot of committed Republican voters are saying they won't vote for him, and that might be their present mood, but I think their current position is very weakly held and likely to change.
 
By the way, Trump's numbers look a lot better when you weight polls by the accuracy of 2012 polls.

CvOHo0wWgAEVVh3.jpg:large
I think you might be reading that wrong if you think it helps Trump. For example, the second pollster on the list (Google) had a +1 R bias in 2012. According to your chart they currently have Clinton at +5. Given their bias that actually puts Clinton at +6. The same is true for almost all the other examples. Rasmussen for example then puts Clinton at +5.7.

Moreover, most poll aggregators/modelers are aware of these biases and take them into account. RCP does not--one of the reasons they can generate more traffic as it makes the race look closer (but still heavily favoring Clinton).
 
More of Sam Harris on the unfitness of Trump, good summary and not too long:

https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/trump-in-exile2

Sam Harris said:
If there is a silver lining here, it is that many of us now see how vulnerable our political system is to charlatanism, conspiracy theories, and populist unreason on both the Right and the Left. The role that the media has played, rendering us all moths to the Trumpian flame, will be scrutinized for years to come. The truth about us is sobering: We have been playing with our smartphones while hurtling toward the abyss…
 
“After the little prayer, Mr. Trump turned to Secretary Clinton and said, ‘You are one tough and talented woman,’” Dolan said in an interview with NBC News. "[Trump] said, 'This has been a good experience, this whole campaign, as tough as it’s been.'"

Dolan, who sat between the two candidates during the dinner, said that Clinton returned the compliment and said, "Donald, whatever happens, we need to work together afterward."
Although Dolan described some of the humor as "awkward," he said that he was moved by both candidates being polite toward one another in private.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box...l-dolan-there-were-some-very-touching-moments

Crooked Hillary is really a tough and talented woman.
 

You are not an American are you?

No, geographically speaking I am Canadian.

I liked your post but I don't consider myself what you would call a pleb... just clearing that up.

Pleb; meaning the common man. Oxford English dictionary.

There is certainly a commonly understood, negative connotation attributed to the word pleb, that far outreaches the words explicit or literal meaning, which is its denotation.
I have been meaning to sit down and try to work out a better definition based on broad terms of social, political and economic
factors. That will take some doing, but it will be a good project. Of course it must also be viewed though a philosophical and modern cultural lens, with consideration given to the roll of attitude and self perception.

I think most Trump supporters are labeled as such when many of them are educated and pretty well off
.

Having money and a formal education does not guarantee an intellect capable of discerning the broad and nuanced reality of the world around them, let alone a logical and moral one. Then there is the trouble of implementation. In fact wealth and formal education can be a hindrance to intellectual exploration and honesty.

Now Trump, to put it in comedic terms, Trump is like a giant golden dick that views every void in the universe as an invitation to fuck it. lol
He knows nothing outside the boundaries of his inflated ego, and his "brand" of self interest and individualism is not to be confused with the more noble definitions that we would all like to imagine are true.

I have a strong amateur history back ground, and really haven't watched much of "the Donald", there is nothing new about his politics. I read a couple of his books and researched him a bit in the 90's and concluded then, to put it in blunt terms, that he was a steaming pile of dog shit. I have seen his kind before, and his political and economic tactics and strategies are older than the word pleb. Hillary is not much better for many reasons, and in her own special way.

It can be said that America, from the standpoint of liberty, freedom, equality, etc... has been on the wain since the 1800's, some point too WW1, some to the new deal, some to the end of WW2, some to the Kennedy assassination, some to the suppression of the human and civil rights movement, some to Vietnam, some to Reagan/Thatcher etc... the American dream was hijacked along time ago, and by the look of things we wont be seeing a decent form of democracy on any meaningful level in our lifetimes.

I am not "the sky is falling" or conspiracy theory type, I have however had the luxury of operating outside of the normal social, political and economic restraints that almost everybody must form their understandings & opinions under. This was made even more evident from my recent nomination to run for a seat on city counsel, and my work with elections Canada. When speaking with supporters and insiders, I couldn't help but feel a terrible sense of dread and frustration at the complete lack of cohesive intellectual and political understandings of both the voters and the small minded selfishness of those seeking power. I have decided that for the moment, that the accumulation of wealth through various forms of ethical and social entrepreneurship is the best way for me to enact change and to then run as an independent at a later time.

Anyway, I'm beginning to windbag.
 
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.
You shouldnt whiteknight Trump but you should defend the fact that everyone in America has a voice and this election proved it.
 
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
Did you just make out a table of political preferences within your family and your using that to claim certain possibilities? This can't be real or I have to be misunderstanding...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top