Topic: U.S. Election Thread 2016

[hans]

Oh my, none of that stuff in B is good. That's all shady too.

[charlie]

Oh my, none of that stuff in B is good. That's all shady too.

People do that shit all the time. They don't get fired.

[Jake]

Oh my, none of that stuff in B is good. That's all shady too.

I agree. Super shady! I admit, I've done things like that when I was younger, but try very hard not to do them anymore. But, like you said, I think a lot of people do things like that almost on a daily basis. And I think that is why these same people makes excuses for their respective candidate's blunt unethical/gross behavior.

My best friend is a "good man" - but when I read your examples in B - it was like reading about him! so is he really a good person? Has our moral compass shifted in the past 50 or 100 years? 

[hans]

We're all hypocrites and flawed individuals (self included). I think the problem is many people don't want to admit that to themselves or care at all to try and improve.

[charlie]

See, I try not to do that stuff myself, and even though those weren't examples from me personally, they are things that folks around me do and I'm sure I've done similar things plenty of times. But I think it's important to separate those things from the real shady stuff. For example, somebody who does the things I mention would get an eye roll from me, and I'd tell my kid not to do them.

But somebody who, say, just as a random out of the blue example, starts a computer repair business then doesn't actually repair people's computers and instead keeps or sells their stuff and skips town, that's somebody who I'd consider shady. There's a difference!

The people who do the former are normal people who live life and don't get fired (and shouldn't get fired!). Same with politicians who do that. People who do the latter should get fired and should have consequences. And so should the politicians that behave that way.

I think that the evidence points to Hillary Clinton being like the former. Not something I approve of, but still within the confines of "normal". Trump is clearly in the latter category.

Has our moral compass shifted in the past 50 or 100 years? 

Yes... for the better!! The fact that we pay attention to this stuff and call people out on it is progress. Do you know what the Presidents were like 50-100 years ago? Let alone the people.

[hans]

It baffles me in this day that any political person or person desiring to go into a public position wouldn't take stock of their personal character and simply admit to the shady stuff they've done in the past. Any time a news person is like "didn't you say..." the answer should be "yup" and then you should explain how your opinion has changed or you still believe X,Y,Z because of reasons.

[hans]

@Charlie - subtle, nice.

[charlie]

It baffles me in this day that any political person or person desiring to go into a public position wouldn't take stock of their personal character and simply admit to the shady stuff they've done in the past. Any time a news person is like "didn't you say..." the answer should be "yup" and then you should explain how your opinion has changed or you still believe X,Y,Z because of reasons.

I agree 100%. I was very happy to see W. and Obama both admit to their drug use so openly and easily. And it didn't hurt them! I don't think Hillary is of that mold, but I think there's progress being made there overall.

[ober]

I think we need to get back to the "old" days where you could disagree about things but still enjoy drinks with each other.

I don't have the historical context to know if it 'used to be better' or not.  But I will say I've heard more times than ever during this election cycle that 'I'm going to unfriend you if you support X' or some equivalent. 

I also don't use much social media.  I don't give a fuck if you believe differently than me (well I do, but it won't change my general relationship to you... if it did I wouldn't speak to most of my family).  What I do have issues with is when 'you' post bigotry or racist bullshit on your wall.  That's what will get you 'unfriended'.

People that disagree so deeply on those subjects should just agree to not discuss those topics.  Then again, I wish there were a class for people that would teach them how to get out of other people's business.  I think that's what makes me the most crazy about most republicans.  They always scream about 'big government' and how 'the government needs to stay out of my business' yet they want the government to control so many things on their agenda. 

I think if people understood some additional perspectives, particularly on 1) women's issues 2) personal rights 3) historical context on religion in government and 4) the ACTUAL position on gun rights from the democratic party... I think the world would be a better place.

[ober]

The funny thing is, and this was in the This American Life podcast, we live in an age where it is so very easy to check the validity of what candidates say but so few people do it or what's worse is that they don't believe the fact check information that is presented.  Rush Limbaugh went as far as to say that people now 'hire fact checkers to be able to post their partisan agenda'.  Most fact checking comes with sources. 

[micah]

Has our moral compass shifted in the past 50 or 100 years? 

Yes... for the better!! The fact that we pay attention to this stuff and call people out on it is progress. Do you know what the Presidents were like 50-100 years ago? Let alone the people.

I think that is subjective to your moral compass

[charlie]

Has our moral compass shifted in the past 50 or 100 years? 

Yes... for the better!! The fact that we pay attention to this stuff and call people out on it is progress. Do you know what the Presidents were like 50-100 years ago? Let alone the people.

I think that is subjective to your moral compass

Well, sure.

But I think a lot of people who think morals have gotten worse might not have that same opinion when they look at the totality of the evidence. The two things that make me think morals are better are that crime is way down and that women and non-whites have a lot more rights and freedoms than they did in the past.

Sure, there are people who think using illegal drugs, or promiscuous or homosexual sex are immoral and on the rise. But even for those folks, the progress in other areas is pretty striking if they sat and thought about it.

I mean, 160 years ago not only did people think it was ok to enslave other people, but the government actually sanctioned it. I'd expect the major step up from that in modern times would dwarf the fact that the government now sanctions people behaving in "immoral" ways in their personal lives.

[Mike]

Honestly, I bet if we could go back and look at the past presidents with the same scrutiny as today we'd find just the same amount of sleaze as we do now.  The difference is that we have so many records and they can be shared so widely and quickly.  Before you might hear about something but it'd be a few sources removed and be much more of a rumor.  Hell, 100 years ago there were political machines in place to ensure people voted the "right" way or you'd lose your job.

[ober]

Honestly, I bet if we could go back and look at the past presidents with the same scrutiny as today we'd find just the same amount of sleaze as we do now.

.... or more.

[charlie]

Here's where the various models and markets have the race:

Electoral College
PEC: >99% Dem. (308 Clinton EV)
HuffPost: 98% Dem. (323 Clinton EV)
PredictWise: 89% Dem. (323 Clinton EV)
DailyKos: 88% Dem. (323 Clinton EV)
NYT Upshot: 84% Dem. (322 Clinton EV)
BettingOdds: 82% Dem. (323 Clinton EV)
538 Polls-only: 69% Dem. (322 Clinton EV)
538 Polls-plus: 70% Dem. (322 Clinton EV)

If you look at individual swing states/districts, here are Clinton's probabilities according to those models:

Swing States

State

|

PrincetonEC

|

HuffPost

|

PredictWise

|

DailyKos

|

NYT Upshot

|

BettingOdds

|

538-Only

|

538-Plus

New Hampshire

|

79%

|

91%

|

88%

|

96%

|

76%

|

75%

|

69%

|

69%

Nevada

|

74%

|

83%

|

95%

|

56%

|

70%

|

83%

|

57%

|

59%

Florida

|

74%

|

89%

|

95%

|

56%

|

70%

|

67%

|

54%

|

53%

North Carolina

|

43%

|

88%

|

60%

|

59%

|

66%

|

55%

|

54%

|

53%

Ohio

|

37%

|

37%

|

31%

|

15%

|

45%

|

33%

|

36%

|

37%

Maine (CD 2)

|

71%

|

50%

|

47%

|

N/A

|

38%

|

N/A

|

49%

|

51%

Iowa

|

26%

|

14%

|

16%

|

3%

|

38%

|

17%

|

30%

|

31%

Nebraska (CD 2)

|

8%

|

50%

|

18%

|

N/A

|

22%

|

N/A

|

38%

|

37%

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

For the senate, their estimates for a Democratic majority are:

Senate
PEC: 79% Dem. (50 Dem seats)
HuffPost: 91% Dem. (51 Dem seats)
PredictWise: 67% Dem. (50 Dem seats)
DailyKos: 66% Dem. (51 Dem seats)
NYT Upshot: 55% Dem. (50 Dem seats)
BettingOdds: 59% Dem. (50 Dem seats)
538 Polls-only: 49% Dem. (50 Dem seats)
538 Polls-plus: 49% Dem. (49 Dem seats)

Competitive Senate Seats

State	|	PrincetonEC	|	HuffPost	|	PredictWise	|	DailyKos	|	NYT Upshot	|	BettingOdds	|	538-Only	|	538-Plus
Wisconsin	|	67%	|	98%	|	86%	|	74%	|	72%	|	82%	|	76%	|	81%
Pennsylvania	|	80%	|	97%	|	81%	|	83%	|	64%	|	78%	|	63%	|	61%
Nevada	|	80%	|	63%	|	74%	|	67%	|	61%	|	73%	|	53%	|	59%
New Hampshire	|	44%	|	79%	|	54%	|	52%	|	52%	|	58%	|	48%	|	52%
Indiana	|	50%	|	88%	|	30%	|	61%	|	42%	|	67%	|	36%	|	31%
Missouri	|	38%	|	41%	|	35%	|	39%	|	39%	|	62%	|	43%	|	42%
North Carolina	|	44%	|	12%	|	32%	|	35%	|	38%	|	64%	|	30%	|	26%

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

Looks like Clinton is a favorite, although not as much as Obama was four years ago. Also looks like the Senate could go either way.