EntropySink
Nothing & Everything => Open Discussion => Topic started by: micah on July 29, 2015, 08:10:26 PM
-
Its a little early, I know, but the wheels are in motion and the money is already flying. Predictions? Hopes and dreams? Place your bets now!
-
My wife's friend invited her out to a local brewery tonight. Turns out it was a Bernie Sanders event :rolleyes:
-
Trump 2016!!!!!!!!!!! Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
-
Anyone but the current GOP candidates or Hilary!
I want Elizabeth Warner!
-
Carly did a bang up job saving HP's ass...
-
I just found out who I'm voting for in 2016. If this thread is still around then let's see if I actually do.
Guy's name is O'Malley. If he runs there's a 65% chance I vote for him after reading a one paragraph blurb.
edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_O%27Malley
So I noticed this guy was speaking at the convention, so I watched a few minutes of his speech. Seemed like a bit of a dork, but not in a good way. Chances down to 49%.
Ok, well, to be honest I doubt I vote in the primary, and there's certainly not a 49% chance he wins the nomination, so I guess this is closer to 2%. As to whether I like him more than Hillary, I don't know, I haven't seen much of him since those posts above.
There's not as much intrigue for me this year. Clinton will almost certainly be the democratic nominee, and I will almost certainly vote for the democratic nominee, so... :dunno:
The Republican race is interesting. Bush, Walker and Rubio are the three who have the best chance. The other 274 potential candidates don't. Maybe one or two others will slide into the mix (Kasich?) but I'm not expecting that.
-
I want Elizabeth Warner!
The MMA fighter? :p Maybe you want her, too, but you probably meant Warren for president.
Carly did a bang up job saving HP's ass...
There were several things in her last run that I really didn't like about Fiorina, even beyond our ideological disagreements. I don't think doing well at a big company is that important, either. Reminds me of Vivek Ranadivé, who built a company into a huge success and people (or he) thought that might mean he'd do well running the Sacramento Kings basketball franchise. Turns out it has been a clusterfuck of epic proportions. Running a business and running a basketball team and running the country are just too different to make that experience be worth too much. Do her policy positions appeal to you at all?
-
I wouldn't vote for Kasich. That motherfucker jacked up Ohio in my opinion. The money he took out of the school systems has been debated as unconstitutional. My local school system alone lost 4 million/year when he pulled that stunt and it hasn't come back. The only reason our school system is still doing ok is because that burden got pushed onto the taxpayers (and it barely got approved on the 3rd attempt). Tons of other schools were in the same spot and had to raise taxes in their cities.
He's also behind a lot of anti-women's rights bullshit regarding abortions and he cut funding to Planned Parenthood.
The guy is waaaaay right wing and bad for the state and the country. He touts a bunch of 'wins' that look good for the state on paper but bad for the people in it as a result.
-
The MMA fighter? :p Maybe you want her, too, but you probably meant Warren for president.
I did indeed but after looking at the MMA fighter's pictures I stand by my typo!
-
I wouldn't vote for Kasich.
Well, yeah, most of the stuff you mention applies to all the likely Republican candidates. He's not actually that right wing:
(https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/enten-feature-kasich-1.png?w=480) (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/john-kasich-a-jeb-bush-in-jon-huntsman-clothing/)
-
My wife's friend invited her out to a local brewery tonight. Turns out it was a Bernie Sanders event :rolleyes:
I mean...I'm jealous, but that's a shitty thing to do without warning her...I'd love Bernie to win, but I know that's unrealistic.
I really like that chart Charlie - I'm shocked that Jindal is so much further left than many of the other candidates. His lockstep "I want to be president" approach to "governing" our state has been a travesty. Seriously - I haven't seen or read anything positive about him for months - and that includes from my staunchest conservative friends. Universally hated.
Beyond that though, I hope Mr. Trump stays in the race as long as possible. :popcorn:
I've said it before - the republicans have been dragged too far to the right for me in recent years. I used to be pretty centrist, but I suddenly find myself on the far left on many issues that appear to now be republican litmus tests (climate change, voter rights, privacy rights, creationism in schools - i.e. the importance of religious liberty as long as it's my religion, acknowledging we have a race/poverty problem, handguns, investing in research and education, and trickle down economics/historically upper income low marginal tax rates....Fuck Grover Norquest).
In other words - I'll end up (reluctantly) voting for Hillary (go Bernie!), and I'll be shocked if whoever makes it through the republican nomination process is centrist enough to win the general election.
-
Sanders said he won't run if he doesn't get the nomination (eg, he's not going to go 3rd party.) I don't think, even if he makes up the ground he's trailing behind Hillary, that the party will nominate him at the convention. Its not common, but the primaries don't necessarily dictate the nominee. I think the DNC will give Hillary what she's "owed".
Kinda the same reason I'm not worried about Trump. He's leading now but he'll never make it through the primaries and if he does, the RNC would NEVER let him actually head up the party. Unfortunately, that means they'll probably give the spot to John Ellis Bush.
-
There's enough people that hate Hillary that I can see her not getting the nomination. And frankly, the more I read about Bernie, the more I like. Some of his stuff is a little more socialist than I'd like but he's a damn solid candidate in my opinion.
-
Bernie! Bernie!
-
There is no way Sanders wins the nomination.
Clinton will be nominated no matter how many people hate her unless there is a major scandal and she drops out of the race. And even then, it won't be Sanders.
Sorry. :|
-
Don't rain on our delusion!
-
Jeb Bush 40 %
Marco Rubio 17 %
Donald Trump 13 %
Carly Fiorina 8 %
Ben Carson 6 %
Scott Walker 4 %
Ted Cruz 4 %
John Kasich 4 %
Mike Huckabee 2 %
Chris Christie 1 %
Rand Paul 1 %
Bobby Jindal 0 %
Rick Santorum 0 %
Lindsey Graham 0 %
George Pataki 0 %
LAST UPDATED: 09-17-2015 3:45PM EDT
http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016RepNomination
Hillary Clinton 68 %
Joe Biden 15 %
Bernie Sanders 15 %
Al Gore 1 %
Martin OMalley 1 %
Elizabeth Warren 1 %
Jim Webb 0 %
Lincoln Chafee 0 %
LAST UPDATED: 09-17-2015 3:45PM EDT
http://www.predictwise.com/politics/2016DemNomination
-
LOL Al Gore!
-
Clinton's chances are not that high.
-
Clinton's chances are not that high.
Huh? Clinton's chances are much higher in my opinion. I'd say 85 or 90%. Or is that what you were saying?
LOL Al Gore!
If Clinton has a scandal that makes her drop out, then it wouldn't be a surprise for a Biden or Gore to try to enter and win the nomination.
-
I think she's vunerable, but I doubt she'll drop out.
-
She won't drop but I'm saying she isn't a lock. There are too many people that don't like her. She isn't as strong of a candidate than she was 8 years ago.
-
WTF is with that guy. Please tell me that he has zero chance of becoming POTUS. :suicide2:
-
So many idiots in this country, but the GOP has pretty much said they would not let him get the nomination. He might run 3rd party but he wouldn't win in that case.
-
The funny thing is that the GOP is actually working harder to prevent Ted Cruz from being their nominee and even praising Trump to do that. Crazy stuff.
But don't worry, there's a better chance of RobR coming back and gracing us with his presence than Donald Trump winning the presidency.
-
He seems to have Palin's support, which I assume counts for something?
Oh, and sorry I haven't been here much. Work got in the way a bit.
-
No sorry necessary. Glad you have a chance to stop by.
And Palin isn't quite so popular any more, and what popularity she has probably overlaps with Trump's quite a bit.
I really doubt Trump gets the Republican nomination, there are lots of reasons to think he won't even though he appears to be a front runner now. And if somehow he does, there's really no way he actually wins the Presidency. He is really popular with a smaller group of people and really unpopular with a much larger group.
-
No sorry necessary. Glad you have a chance to stop by.
And Palin isn't quite so popular any more, and what popularity she has probably overlaps with Trump's quite a bit.
I really doubt Trump gets the Republican nomination, there are lots of reasons to think he won't even though he appears to be a front runner now. And if somehow he does, there's really no way he actually wins the Presidency. He is really popular with a smaller group of people and really unpopular with a much larger group.
This. All of this.
-
Overall the political climate within the GOP is fucking ridiculous. I don't know if I could vote for any of the top 5. On the other side of the isle, same thing - I would not vote for either Sanders or Clinton :(
-
Not to open a crazy political thread... but I'm curious. I get why some won't vote for Hillary. But I'm honestly curious what you don't like about Sanders? Too much of a socialist?
-
Too much of a socialist?
waaaaaaay too much.
-
and just so that we are clear, I think some of his ideas are great and we should strive for them: free college, single payer healthcare, higher minimum wage - but how will he pay for this? by raising taxes. I pay enough in taxes -
-
Too much of a socialist?
waaaaaaay too much.
(http://www.eclectablog.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/SnowPlow.jpg)
A higher minimum wage doesn't mean raising taxes. A single payer healthcare system might raise your taxes but could lower your insurance cost (though a lot of single payer systems still have a secondary market).
We could possibly cover some of the costs by not fighting unnecessary wars in a land we've been fucking up for 30+ years because we "bomb baby bomb" instead of trying to understand the social and political environment of the region.
-
I haven't studied Sanders positions enough to really know whether I'd prefer him over Clinton, but it's certainly possible. I don't think it really matters though since he is still a huge long shot and I'd almost rather have Clinton anyway since I think she has a better chance at winning the general election. Relative to politicians in general I don't mind her at all.
As far as the Republicans go I've seen enough to know that I don't want a Republican. And I really don't want Trump or Cruz. Rubio is the most likely Republican candidate and is very conservative, yet he also has a better chance of winning against Clinton than Trump or Cruz, so really he's the most "dangerous". There are others still with a chance but none that have broken into the top group yet.
My vote won't really count in the primary or general election, though, so really it's just me watching it all happen.
-
So summing up: Trump doesn't stand a chance, we just hear all about him because the press find him "interesting".
-
@RobR, yeah, pretty much.
@Jake, most of your party currently considers Obama to be a socialist and you also consider most of your candidates to somehow be a relief from whatever he put in place. My own father has a little piece of paper on his desk that says 'With Regan we had Johnny Cash and Bob Hope. With Obama we have no cash and no hope'. Yet I haven't seen much put out by any of the GOP candidates that would some how infuse each American with cash. Most of them just want to repeal obamacare and leave millions without healthcare. Oh, and they want to drive women's rights into the stone age on top of it.
My father-in-law mentioned something about Bloomberg running as an independent. I think that would be an interesting thing to throw in the mix.
@Charle... I get what you're saying, I just don't think Sanders necessarily has a worse chance of winning... and frankly I don't think Clinton has enough support to win. There are a lot of people that hate her (justified or not). And I would take Rubio over Cruz or Trump... but then again I don't know much about him.
-
<img>silly snowplow meme</img>
Government services != Socalisim (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425799/socialism-united-states-meme)
-
My father-in-law mentioned something about Bloomberg running as an independent. I think that would be an interesting thing to throw in the mix.
I heard that too! I think Bloomberg might be good, but he would pretty much ban all guns :p
-
You guys are saying that there is no way the Trump even gets the nod. I dunno, I thought that way a few months ago as well...no way 'man! but now shit 's gettin' real. And he is still around! I really hope something changes soon...are there any other viable candidates from the left?
On the plus side - I pumped gas at $1.64 over the weekend. Thanks Obamer!
-
<img>silly snowplow meme</img>
Government services != Socalisim (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425799/socialism-united-states-meme)
I don't take the snow plow thing serious (for one I don't live in an area with snow). Obviously, taken literally the image is wrong. But the issue is that what some people call government services others are calling socialism.
You guys are saying that there is no way the Trump even gets the nod. I dunno, I thought that way a few months ago as well...no way 'man! but now shit 's gettin' real. And he is still around! I really hope something changes soon...are there any other viable candidates from the left?
One thing to remember is that there are a TON of electors that don't come from the primaries. So if the party really doesn't want him he won't get it.
Too bad there isn't a "None of these assholes, bring us a new group of candidates" options.
-
You guys are saying that there is no way the Trump even gets the nod. I dunno, I thought that way a few months ago as well...no way 'man! but now shit 's gettin' real. And he is still around! I really hope something changes soon...
Actually, I said I really doubt Trump gets the nomination and there's no way he gets the Presidency. Also, nothing has really changed from where it was several months ago. We still haven't had any primaries or caucuses, and we still haven't had many candidates drop out. You shouldn't have expected anything to change by now.
Trump's biggest vulnerabilities are when it actually comes time to vote, and when some of the also-rans drop out and their support coalesces around Rubio (or somebody else). Once both of those things happen and he's still the front-runner, we can "worry" a bit more.
are there any other viable candidates from the left?
There's only one candidate on the left that has a good chance (Clinton), and only one that has even a remote chance (Sanders). There won't be anybody else unless Clinton drops out or dies or something.
-
Clearly you guys don't live in a state that elected a former wrestler as your governor. I think there's much to be said about the temperament of the population at the moment which I'd give a better than average chance Trump could win the GOP and even an election. Let's also not forget that now days it's often the candidate with the biggest budget that wins. Honestly I'm not really excited about any of the choices, but on the bright side, the rest of our government seem to be really good about stalling the agenda of a president so maybe it won't matter too much.
-
Clearly you guys don't live in a state that elected a former wrestler as your governor.
We elected Arnold and Reagan.
-
You guys are saying that there is no way the Trump even gets the nod. I dunno, I thought that way a few months ago as well...no way 'man! but now shit 's gettin' real. And he is still around! I really hope something changes soon...
Actually, I said I really doubt Trump gets the nomination and there's no way he gets the Presidency. Also, nothing has really changed from where it was several months ago. We still haven't had any primaries or caucuses, and we still haven't had many candidates drop out. You shouldn't have expected anything to change by now.
Trump's biggest vulnerabilities are when it actually comes time to vote, and when some of the also-rans drop out and their support coalesces around Rubio (or somebody else). Once both of those things happen and he's still the front-runner, we can "worry" a bit more.
So... uh... time to worry a bit. :o
Trump is now a big favorite to get the most delegates. He might not get more than 50%, though, since both Cruz and Rubio have a bunch themselves. So while after tonight I guess I have to say that Trump is the favorite to win the nomination, there's still a lot of shenanigans that can happen.
Oh, and Sanders' chances are getting smaller and smaller.
And Rob, I'd now put Trump's chance at becoming the President at around 25-30%. Crazy.
-
It really blows my mind that we're in this position. I don't know how people can be so blind to the insanity.
And yeah, I hate to say it, but I think Bernie is done. I guess he 'feels the bern'.
-
fucking.
weird.
really scary.
-
there's still a lot of shenanigans that can happen.
like what?
-
there's still a lot of shenanigans that can happen.
like what?
Well, the biggest thing would be if Cruz or Rubio keep picking up delegates and keep Trump from winning a majority. This will be harder if they both stay in the race actually, because starting March 15th a lot of states are winner take all, so even though Trump is only getting 35% of the vote, he ends up winning all the delegates because Cruz and Rubio get 25 or 30% each.
But regardless, Trump could easily end up with 40 or 45% of the delegates when it's all over. Then, in the convention, the first vote will not have a majority. So that's when they do the wheeling and dealing. The anti-Trump folks will try to convince the non-Trump delegates to all go to the same person (presumably Rubio). Who knows how that would play out, but even though Trump will probably get the most delegates, he won't necessarily get enough to avoid that drama.
And then, no matter what happens there, either Trump or the remaining Republicans could always consider a third-party run. That would win the election for Clinton, but for some Republicans it would be better to do that than allow Trump to move the party in a way they don't like.
-
I'd sooner vote Trump than Hillary. They will both lead to the same outcome. But the sooner society collapses, the sooner we can rebuild.
I'm gonna need reasons.
-
believe it or not, I also do not like Trump. Mostly for these reasons: http://www.dailywire.com/news/3735/ben-shapiro-donald-trump-liar-ben-shapiro *
I'd be OK with Rubbio but I'm going to vote Cruz in our primary. I don't know what i'm going to do if Trump gets the nomination. I do NOT want Hillary (or Bernie, if he had a chance) but I can't ethically defend Trump, let alone campaign for him. As a conservative, is it better to vote for him in the general election to block Hillary? or do I just not vote? I dunno what I'm going to do. I guess we'll find out.
* here's the video embeded in that link, in case you don't want to click it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX5dBzxKNOw
-
We need voting apps that include caucustuff. Why don't we have voting apps yet.
agreed. The IRS can send you a PIN number to file your taxes by phone, why can't we vote online? Mail every registered voter a token code and let them log in and vote.
-
As a conservative, is it better to vote for him in the general election to block Hillary? or do I just not vote? I dunno what I'm going to do. I guess we'll find out.
And that's the problem with a two party system.
I would hope that when Nov comes we all will look at the candidates and vote for the person, regardless of party, that best represents our interests based off of real issues and not sound bites.
As a non-GOPer (anymore) I'm hoping for a schism with the GOP side like there was with Perot.
-
You should go in a Bernie shirt, Trump hat, while waving a Hillary pennant and Jeb! gun
-
and PHD socks. I got some they are great.
What boots do you wear by the way?
-
I'd be OK with Rubbio but I'm going to vote Cruz in our primary. I don't know what i'm going to do if Trump gets the nomination. I do NOT want Hillary (or Bernie, if he had a chance) but I can't ethically defend Trump, let alone campaign for him. As a conservative, is it better to vote for him in the general election to block Hillary? or do I just not vote? I dunno what I'm going to do. I guess we'll find out.
Good thing for you is that your vote probably won't count. ;)
-
it is like we are in the twilight zone.
I find it hard to believe we are in the situation we are in right now. I also find it hard to believe that the democrats are happy that Hillary will be the nominee.
this.
is.
fucked.
-
Two things...
1) Trump getting 35% of 30% of the country isn't that crazy. It's just a strange confluence of events that is allowing him to be leading his party's nomination race.
2) What's wrong with Clinton? Relative to a generic Democrat she's a pretty good choice. What are your issues with her?
-
This is why we should have nay votes that subtract one from their total. I would have voted many more times if I could vote against someone without having to vote for someone else.
(http://i.giphy.com/C0z65GND5PgzK.gif)
-
(http://i.giphy.com/C0z65GND5PgzK.gif)
she is so cute
-
2) What's wrong with Clinton? Relative to a generic Democrat she's a pretty good choice. What are your issues with her?
this requires a longer reply so I will do it tonight.
-
I'm curious too. I know she isn't perfect and people love to hate her but she is easily the most qualified in terms of political experience. And who doesn't want her husband as the First Man?
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0YIJQ1jgEI
-
I'm finally starting to see an increase in opposition to Trump. And by that I mean the number of DoD people speaking out against his insanity as well as some other congressmen.
I really think he is playing is all for fools and he is just trying to destroy the GOP. And it is working. We are going to have a democrat again for the next 4 years because the GOP can't get their shit together. Not that I'm sad about this :)
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0YIJQ1jgEI
notice, that in my post I said "I also find it hard to believe that the democrats are happy that Hillary will be the nominee" - so the comment was about democrats, not my personal views. The reason I think that way, is compared to Sanders Hillary is almost a conservative! but definitely middle of the road. I'm surprised that more democrats are not rallying behind Sanders, after all, he exhumes and stands behind many ideals that are at the core of the left.
Personally, I think that with either Bernie or Trump as the president, the country would spin out of control. The ideological divisions are two deep and both of them come from the extremes of their party and as such would never garnish ANY support or respect from the other side and these divisions could lead us into a dark future.
-
What makes you feel like the country is in control now?
Unfortunately I have a pretty pessimistic view of our country and the world as a whole and even though I think that the USA is still more stable than the majority of the world, we [the world] are teetering on the brink of disaster. If either Sanders or Trump become president, the scales will not only tip but tumble. Also, I don't think this is much different than at any other point in our history...it takes a very skilled few to keep societies peaceful...the only difference now is that the stakes are much higher.
-
Man I love people that feel like we're on the 'brink of disaster'. It makes me think of all the people that told me as a child that Jesus was coming back 'any day'.
What 'disaster' path are we on?
1) We've already survived a pretty catastrophic economic disaster world-wide in the past decade. The financial systems are a mess for sure, but I don't think it is something that cannot be overcome.
2) The current state of war in general is pretty much status quo, and some would argue the world is more peaceful than at many other points in the past.
3) Technology is making things like feeding the world a problem of the past (not that it will ever be perfect, but I don't recall the last time I heard concerns about 'how we are going to feed 9 billion people').
4) Climate change is climate change... no single leader is going to change that.
So what else keeps you up at night? The dirty democrats that feed your children the dreaded 'common core' (which is just a complete misunderstanding of the concept)? The 'morally corrupt' politicians that want to continue allowing abortions and gay marriage (oh yes... let's put more church stuff in our laws)?
I'm genuinely curious. Maybe you need to spend more time reading some positive material than dwelling on the negative. I think we all could use a little more of that.
Sorry, I'm not trying to be a dick here... I just hate statements like that.
-
I don't believe the office of the president is as powerful as many people think it is. As we've seen in the last several years it's quite clear that the rest of the government is capable of stalling pretty much any agenda they feel like. My hunch is that regardless of who is elected we're pretty much in for another 4 years of nothing.
On a side note, I really don't want to vote this year. I don't see any candidate that would actually make a good president.
-
As for Axon, your belief that Sanders will cause the country to tumble is only based on intuition
He will not cause it, but has the potential to be the catalyst. People that strongly oppose his ideology will cause it. Same goes for Trump.
Ethic, you are not interpreting my posts correctly - I am saying that neither Sanders or Trump would work for us - you seem to concentrate on me attacking sanders alone.
-
Man I love people that feel like we're on the 'brink of disaster'. It makes me think of all the people that told me as a child that Jesus was coming back 'any day'.
Sorry, I'm not trying to be a dick here... I just hate statements like that.
I will only take the bait a little ober - but your views of the world are sheltered to your immediate environment (being North America). When I say we are nearing disaster I am looking at the recent events in eastern and western europe, the middle east, continued disasters in Africa, etc etc. And like I said, I think we (the USA) is more stable than most! So, please, do not misinterpret my words.
3) Technology is making things like feeding the world a problem of the past (not that it will ever be perfect, but I don't recall the last time I heard concerns about 'how we are going to feed 9 billion people').
this should be a topic of its own.
So what else keeps you up at night? The dirty democrats that feed your children the dreaded 'common core' (which is just a complete misunderstanding of the concept)? The 'morally corrupt' politicians that want to continue allowing abortions and gay marriage (oh yes... let's put more church stuff in our laws)?
that is not fair, Ober, and yes, you are being a dick.
-
that is not fair, Ober, and yes, you are being a dick.
Fair enough and I apologize. I was in a bad mood earlier. But you didn't answer my question.
Yes, there is unrest in the middle east and other regions. But tell me how that is different from the war in X that happened Y years ago? If it was 1941 and Hitler was killing a single race by the millions we would have something to talk about. The things going on today are disturbing but a far cry from that reality.
And I'm not trying to downplay the shit going on with ISIS or in Syria or Africa or whatever. I just don't have a 'dooms day' attitude about it. And if you want to call me sheltered or that I have a warped view of the world, go for it. But that's your opinion.
And the things I listed in my 'keeping you up at night' bit wasn't necessarily targeted at you. Those are things I hear coming from the right wing folks and I was just trying to get you to elaborate on your point. Sorry if I was over the line.
-
Maybe he'll lead to more stability. Even if all Sanders does is acknowledge these issues, that's still far more than any other candidate is doing.
I think that for the most part a vast majority of American's are middle of the road folks who desire many of the same things: safety, a pretty comfortable life for all, good and inexpensive education, great healthcare, freedom - I know I do, and am pretty sure all of you do as well. However, there are minorities on either side of the spectrum that garner a lot of attention because of the noise they make, overshadowing the majority. And you can't help but blame the media for this - but then again, the media would probably not produce things people do not want to watch.
Ober mentioned gay marriage and abortions, I really think those types of social issues are issues of the past that the same majority from above are pretty indifferent about and there is a general acceptance of them. And again, it is the polarized extremes that still want to make these issues hot and relevant. they are not.
I don't know what I'm trying to say here, but I think what we need is a more centrist leader - and at this time Hillary might be it. But I am with tgm, it will be hard for me to vote this season.
-
Ober mentioned gay marriage and abortions, I really think those types of social issues are issues of the past that the same majority from above are pretty indifferent about and there is a general acceptance of them. And again, it is the polarized extremes that still want to make these issues hot and relevant. they are not.
While you and I think that, I would never go as far as to say these are issues of the past. Abortion laws are currently up for debate in a lot of places and there was just a Supreme Court ruling on it very recently. And gay marriage couldn't be more of a current issue for a lot of the nation. Are we even 6 months from the story of that lady in the courts in Kentucky that wouldn't sign the licenses? Do you have any idea how many supporters she had?
I wish they were issues of the past. I just don't think most people can get past them. And it's unfortunate.
-
But tell me how that is different from the war in X that happened Y years ago?
it is not any different and I said as much in my post
Also, I don't think this is much different than at any other point in our history...it takes a very skilled few to keep societies peaceful...the only difference now is that the stakes are much higher.
If it was 1941 and Hitler was killing a single race by the millions we would have something to talk about.
I think we should talk about it now and forever to prevent such tragedies from happening at all. As a side note, and I know you know this, but Hitler did not kill a single race - 500 thousand gypsies and almost 6 million Poles died in World War 2 - among other nations.
-
Ober mentioned gay marriage and abortions, I really think those types of social issues are issues of the past that the same majority from above are pretty indifferent about and there is a general acceptance of them. And again, it is the polarized extremes that still want to make these issues hot and relevant. they are not.
While you and I think that, I would never go as far as to say these are issues of the past. Abortion laws are currently up for debate in a lot of places and there was just a Supreme Court ruling on it very recently. And gay marriage couldn't be more of a current issue for a lot of the nation. Are we even 6 months from the story of that lady in the courts in Kentucky that wouldn't sign the licenses? Do you have any idea how many supporters she had?
I wish they were issues of the past. I just don't think most people can get past them. And it's unfortunate.
we hear about these issues because there are instigators that want to make them relevant. These instigators have the gift of gab (again, on both sides) and easily persuade people to their way of thinking. If these instigators were not around, people would not care one way or another.
-
But you said specifically 'the stakes are much higher now'. That's the part I don't agree with.
And yes, I know many others were killed in that war, but you got my point.
-
But you said specifically 'the stakes are much higher now'.
what I meant is that now, it is much easier to destroy in mass than at any point in history. And 'now' is relative, of course.
-
Mass destruction can take many forms and has been an option for quite a while. I wouldn't say that alone 'raises the stakes'.
-
Yeah... I'm lost as to why we're on the brink of disaster. I mean, if by "brink of disaster" you mean disaster could happen at any moment, sure, that's technically accurate. But so what? There's always a small chance of something super bad happening, but that doesn't mean there is anything special about right now. And if the world is always at the brink of disaster, then it kind of loses its meaning. Honestly, other than climate change, which you can call a disaster if you'd like without major argument from me, there isn't that much scary going on in the world especially relative to the past.
Now, why a Sanders or Trump election would somehow be a catalyst for a world-wide disaster I have no idea. Especially Sanders, who wouldn't be that much different from Obama in trying to enact stuff and getting stonewalled.
Trump is a little more scary as a potential President, but what is he going to do? It sounds like you think that because they are more extreme than most candidates, their election would cause unrest that would lead to the country spinning out of control? I just don't see that at all. I mean, look what happened when Obama became President. There were a ton of people who hated him. Probably more than who would hate Sanders (despite Obama being much less liberal). What happened? There were some Tea Party protests and unrest, but basically business as usual.
The other thing is that unrest often comes from bad economic situations. The economy is clearly better than it was eight years ago. Even if it doesn't feel that way for many people, it does feel that way for many others.
P.S. As far as Democrats not being happy about Clinton because she's more of a centrist, I think that idea misses the fact that Democrats are just as centrist as Clinton. Her ideology is just about average for a Democrat. It's Sanders that is much more liberal than the average Democrat. That's why he was considered a fringe candidate and why Clinton is expected to win the nomination relatively easily.
-
Honestly, other than climate change, which you can call a disaster if you'd like without major argument from me, there isn't that much scary going on in the world especially relative to the past
Why is Climate Change glossed over like this? Why isn't that a big enough issue to accept as on the brink of disaster? It's a global issue; societies are built upon stable food, water and energy supply. The scary thing about Climate Change is that passed a certain point, it'll feed itself.
Because I don't think that's what Jake was talking about.
As far as climate change's effects on the world, I do think it will cause a lot more problems than just destroying the lives of millions of people who live in low-lying areas. I do think it will affect stable food, water and energy supplies, which will lead to more unrest and more instability throughout the world. I do think it's the closest think to a disaster there is in the world right now.
But I also think that many other causes of instability are being remedied or are improving, which will help balance that out. So if we had done something about climate change earlier that would have saved us a bunch of upcoming grief, I don't think that the upcoming grief will be that much worse than what we have now.
-
Why isn't income inequality not considered the brink of disaster? It's disastrous for the people at the lower end of the spectrum. It's becoming disastrous for people in the middle. Repost https://youtu.be/QPKKQnijnsM
What about the the bubble of student loan debt affecting an entire generation? When the bubble bursts, it may be substantially worse than the 2008 mortgage crisis.
What about the numerous problems with Healthcare and the people they affect?
How many people have to be affected before it's considered a disaster? What if the disaster isn't one single situation, but the cumulative affect of all of them?
I do think income inequality is a problem, but it's not the type of problem that leads to disaster. There have always been poor people, and the fact that the richest are now richer doesn't change that. It's a problem, but not really different in type than existing problems.
I guess the bubble of student loan debt could lead to something like the mortgage crisis. I'm not convinced that it will. But even then, the mortgage crisis didn't cause disaster, it just caused a very bad recession.
Healthcare has plenty of problems, but are they worse now than before? Seems like more people are covered and at least a few of the problems are being addressed. Again, stuff to work on but nothing that I see that will lead to disaster.
I mean, to me, a disaster means something much worse than has happened recently. The way Jake was talking it sounded like he thought there would be major upheaval like hasn't been seen in the last century. If by disaster you mean bad stuff like the bad stuff that has happened recently, then it's an entirely different conversation.
And of course, that doesn't mean there aren't individuals that have disastrous outcomes from these problems. Of course there are. But that just makes them regular problems similar to all the other problems the country and world have faced over the last few decades. Something to work on and try to fix and something to pay attention to when voting, but not a reason for this election to be more meaningful than any other. At least from my perspective.
-
Holy shit. This is really happening......
-
It is, but with any luck it will push more people to vote for Hillary.
-
Except that he doesn't, and it's too late anyway. Sorry.
-
And fingers are still crossed for an indictment. Hillary is awfu, corrupt, money-laundering candidate.
yay! we agree on something :)
/ I don't like Trump, or Sanders or Hillary. I don't know what to do :(
-
Ditto.
-
Don't vote if you're not behind a candidate. It's a simple decision.
If Sanders can't secure the party nomination and doesn't run as a 3rd party, will you vote in the general election?
-
Jill Stein!
-
And fingers are still crossed for an indictment. Hillary is awfu, corrupt, money-laundering candidate.
yay! we agree on something :)
/ I don't like Trump, or Sanders or Hillary. I don't know what to do :(
I'm in the same boat.
If we just compared resumes for this "position", side-by-side, Hillary is the best candidate....
-
Agreed, Hillary would be the better states
manwoman.
Thats actually the reason I don't like Trump; I'm not too concerned with his political beliefs I just think he's a jackass. I want my president to be someone I can respect. I don't care for Obama, but if he came to town I would be proud to shake his hand and have my children meet him. Trump is just an amoral blowhard.
-
Jill Stein!
-
Hillary is THE most qualified among the remaining options. I don't love her and I wish it was Bernie but Hillary will still get my vote.
-
She's not Donald Trump. At this point that's considered a pretty impressive qualification.
-
Sorry ethic... I kinda like Clinton.
:dunno:
-
:dunno: :scratchhead: :hick:
-
I think he did more damage to himself this week than anything. I'm not worried.
-
:dunno: :scratchhead: :hick:
:+1:
-
So are the Hillary supporters at all phased by the information that is coming out from the leaked DNC emails?
-
What information?
So far all that I've seen is that some of the people working for the DNC preferred her over Sanders and one of them proposed something to point out his potential Atheism prior to southern primaries (but without actually acting on that idea).
Obviously more information could come out, but what I've seen so far isn't even a little bit bad for Clinton.
-
Well it was a little more than just the Sander's faith question (http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/24/politics/dnc-email-leak-wikileaks/) but you're right, its not particularly damning to Hillary, more the DNC in general. I think the people it cheesed off the most were Bernie supporters, not only because of the obvious stuff in there showing the party's bias against him, but also some of the general stuff about fundraiser's and donor preferential treatment. Again, nothing earth shattering, but it reminds everyone how politics work. hidden from the public, behind closed doors and with a mightier-than-thou-disdain for true democracy.
I'm pretty sure if/when someone leaks a bunch of GOP emails it will show the same sorts of stuff.
-
Except the guy that that stuff was probably trying to make lose actually won.
-
Except the guy that that stuff was probably trying to make lose actually won.
yeah, I actually commented on this a couple weeks ago on facebook (where I generally try to refrain from politics.) I think its because Trump's campaign is based on being anti-establishment. So overtime his own party tries to take him out, he calls them out on it and his base swells. Thats why it seems like nothing sticks to him. He could say the most outrageous things and then when the GOP tries to distance themselves from him or tell him he needs to apologize, more people just join his bandwagon.
Contrast that with Hillary being the epitome of "the Washington establishment"
-
I changed my mind, ethic. Don't vote Jill Stein. Clinton's the only sane choice.
-
Yeah, I looked both Jill and Gary and I dunno, they have some crazy to them.
-
Gary is a little unhinged. Samantha Bee did a little thing on their convention and those people are a bunch of damn whackjobs.
-
Does it bother you if you know you're voting for a compulsive liar? I mean, we got used to thinking that all politicians fib, but holy shit...
Also, this http://money.cnn.com/2016/10/31/media/donna-brazile-cnn-resignation/index.html
What do you think about it?
-
Both sides have been lying their asses off. Clinton just does it by proxy.
-
I'm not saying Clinton doesn't lie, but what was the lie here?
-
Does it bother you if you know you're voting for a compulsive liar? I mean, we got used to thinking that all politicians fib, but holy shit...
Jake, when I read this, I honestly didn't know which candidate you were referring to. I don't know if you're behind Trump and saying this about Clinton or the other way around. Trump rarely says anything that is true and the Republicans eat it up like gospel. If you haven't listened to the 'Seriously?' podcast by This American Life, I suggest you do.
-
Jake, when I read this, I honestly didn't know which candidate you were referring to.
that was the point. and isn't it a damn shame?
I'm not saying Clinton doesn't lie,
and how does that make you feel? that you will be casting a vote for a compulsive liar?
but what was the lie here?
this was a different thought. but the similar at the same time. shows more unethical and deceitful strategies to win. What I would expect from my candidate is that he or she would immediately report that the questions were leaked to the commission on presidential debates and the public - wouldn't you?
-
overall, I think that the major parties' presidential candidates are a reflection of the current state of our society - and if you ask me, it is pretty damn sad.
-
Clinton just does it by proxy.
so is that better or worse?
does that justify her?
does that make her not guilt of the fact?
also, I don't agree with you - she had been lying plenty by herself!
-
haha, I just see this trending on FB. pretty funny
http://go.shr.lc/2ecW5yi
-
It's also sad just how many ancillary people are getting taken out during this election.
What I think is missing here is a lack of integrity. Which is a cultural problem at the moment. Our current generations have lost respect for just about everything and I see a high level of entitlement everywhere.
Through this whole season I don't think we've actually focused on issues at all. You could probably ask most people where candidates stand on issues and they'd have no idea. The only thing they know is the respective dirt on the opposition.
-
Clinton just does it by proxy.
so is that better or worse?
does that justify her?
does that make her not guilt of the fact?
also, I don't agree with you - she had been lying plenty by herself!
Read the fact checking of her statements vs Trumps. Yes, both are lying and it sucks. And yes, this election is an indictment of society.
I do think people are focusing on the wrong lies. The fact that the DNC stacked the deck for her is not so much an issue about her as it is with the party itself.
And tgm, it is only social media that shows the entitlement. When I've dealt with real people they are normal.
-
Ok, so there are two issues here. The first is about Clinton in general and whether I'm ok voting for that level of lying. The second is about the particular issue you linked to. I'll take them in opposite order.
but what was the lie here?
this was a different thought. but the similar at the same time. shows more unethical and deceitful strategies to win. What I would expect from my candidate is that he or she would immediately report that the questions were leaked to the commission on presidential debates and the public - wouldn't you?
First, the article wasn't all that clear about this, but it certainly seems like this is unrelated to the commission on presidential debates. Sounded like this was from before the general election debates, since Brazille wasn't working at CNN by then. Right? But ok, let's assume it did happen, probably in the primaries. Do I think it's bad that it happened? Of course. Do I think Clinton's team should have reported it? Well, not really, since they shouldn't have done it in the first place. If they were ok with it, why would they report themselves. If they weren't ok with it, why would they do anything other than quietly say no, thank you?
So, yeah. Not a cool thing. But not a huge thing either.
I'm not saying Clinton doesn't lie,
and how does that make you feel? that you will be casting a vote for a compulsive liar?
But the bigger picture is this. I see no reason to consider her a compulsive liar. That has a specific meaning that I see no evidence for. Instead, I see a politician who tries to navigate a political system where everything gets twisted and turned into a scandal. I see someone who is overly cautious and whose instinct is to cover up anything that could be damaging, or make the most convoluted and twisted explanation when simple transparency and honesty would be preferred.
Do I like that about her? Of course not! But this has to be taken in the context of those in similar positions. Bill Clinton is far worse when it comes to lies and overall behavior than Hillary. Donald Trump is in another stratosphere. George W. Bush probably didn't lie as much, but he sure fucked things up pretty bad when his motivated reasoning led him to repeat things that weren't true and lead us into a big fat war (among other things). As politicians go, I think Obama is excellent in this regard, but even he is a politician and not up to the standard I have for most people in everyday life.
So the question I ask myself is, does it bother me that I'm voting for someone who is average as a candidate for President when it comes honesty? No, not really. And especially not when the alternatives are so much worse in pretty much every area.
I'd like to make things better in this regard, but there are two things that I think can be done.
1) Don't vote for the egregious cases if at all possible (preferably in primaries). So don't vote for the John Edwards or the Newt Gingriches or Bill Clintons when you have a chance to pick an alternative with similar political views. And don't vote for the Donald Trumps regardless of political views.
2) Stop making such a big fucking deal about every little thing. Treat these people like human beings who are imperfect. The more we hold politicians to incredibly high standards, the more they are going to want to deceive us into believing they meet those standards. Stop it. They are human, they have ideas and ambitions and most of them believe that the country and world would be a better place if we let them run things for us. This necessarily skews how they act and will inevitably lead to behavior that most of us would consider to be wrong. It's going to happen, so don't treat them like criminals every time they make a bad choice or even a good one that just turned out wrong. Hold them accountable and push for transparency but don't disqualify them until and unless it is clear that they are so corrupt that they cannot govern effectively and they will do so worse than the alternative.
-
have you guys been watching South Park this season - it is a pretty awesome satire on this election cycle!
-
I'm not sure we're holding them to a ridiculously high standard. Often times what they do would get any normal person at any other job fired. They should be too then, or at least some kind of accountability (oh my, I can't believe "I" actually said that).
@Mike I don't really do a lot of social media so my perspective is from people in general that I see in various regular life context.
I see a lack of respect and empathy just in general culture and daily interactions.
And politically, we can't fathom people having differing opinions to us. My wife and I have radically different opinions about many things (especially who to vote for) but I respect her and why she's deciding what she is and she respects me and understands my perspective. I think we need to get back to the "old" days where you could disagree about things but still enjoy drinks with each other.
-
That is one of the things I like about you folk around here though. I think most of us can accept that we don't agree on things all of the time and yet we still continue to hang out here with the occasional mockery.
-
I'm not sure we're holding them to a ridiculously high standard. Often times what they do would get any normal person at any other job fired. They should be too then, or at least some kind of accountability (oh my, I can't believe "I" actually said that).
That sounds good, but a) politics is not "normal". It's becoming a public figure where not only is your every move scrutinized, but also your fitness for doing what you're doing is based in large part on that scrutiny. Actors and athletes get scrutinized, but that doesn't really affect whether they can do their job. Politicians get scrutinized and failures are part of how we judge them. I don't think we can hold them to the same standard as we hold "normal" folks.
But also, b) I think we're lying to ourselves if we think "normal" folks don't do this sort of thing all the time. I mean, I can think of lots of examples of stuff in daily life that would be considered shady if a politician did it. We know the teachers at the school fairly well, so we ask them to help get our kid into the best classroom for the following year. We buy a mattress at Costco and use it for five years before returning it as defective and getting our money back. We tell the police officer that we didn't realize the tail light was out and that we'll get it fixed promptly even though we've been waiting to fix it for months. These are all ways normal people take advantage of the system or tell small lies or fibs to avoid criticism or punishment. The stakes are clearly lower, so we accept them. The consequences are smaller, so we don't think twice. But we still do the same things.
Politicians should be held to a high standard because the consequences can be worse, but we should also be aware that they are human and will have the same instincts as the rest of us humans do. In all cases we should be charitable with our interpretations of what happens and try to give the benefit of the doubt when the information is murky. The more we do that, in my opinion, the more we will be effective in actually holding them to a higher standard on the decisions that really matter.
-
And I definitely agree on the having respect for differing opinions thing. I think that's one of the things that bothers me (the guy who isn't usually bothered by much of anything) about where politics is these days. I think that's a real shift, and it has very bad consequences.
-
Oh my, none of that stuff in B is good. That's all shady too.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
@Charlie - subtle, nice.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Here's where the various models and markets have the race:
Electoral College
PEC (http://election.princeton.edu/): >99% Dem. (308 Clinton EV)
HuffPost (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/president): 98% Dem. (323 Clinton EV)
PredictWise (http://predictwise.com/politics): 89% Dem. (323 Clinton EV)
DailyKos (http://elections.dailykos.com/app/elections/2016): 88% Dem. (323 Clinton EV)
NYT Upshot (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html): 84% Dem. (322 Clinton EV)
BettingOdds (https://electionbettingodds.com/): 82% Dem. (323 Clinton EV)
538 Polls-only (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast): 69% Dem. (322 Clinton EV)
538 Polls-plus (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/#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 (http://election.princeton.edu/): 79% Dem. (50 Dem seats)
HuffPost (http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2016/forecast/senate): 91% Dem. (51 Dem seats)
PredictWise (http://predictwise.com/politics): 67% Dem. (50 Dem seats)
DailyKos (http://elections.dailykos.com/app/elections/2016): 66% Dem. (51 Dem seats)
NYT Upshot (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/senate-election-forecast.html): 55% Dem. (50 Dem seats)
BettingOdds (https://electionbettingodds.com/): 59% Dem. (50 Dem seats)
538 Polls-only (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/): 49% Dem. (50 Dem seats)
538 Polls-plus (http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/senate/#polls): 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.
-
And Rob, I'd now put Trump's chance at becoming the President at around 25-30%. Crazy.
I think I'm currently at 20-25%, by the way. Way too high for my tastes.
-
538 says his chances are around 28%.
-
So, any real time prediction sites?
-
This looks cool:
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president
-
This looks cool:
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/forecast/president
yes, along with their map
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president
also, so far closer than the polsters predicted
-
Holy shit. Trump is gonna win.
That's crazy. I really didn't think it was possible.
-
They still have her leading the popular vote. Maybe this will be what we need to get rid of the electoral college! Ok, probably not but one can dream.
-
She could win the popular vote and lose the electoral college by 70.
-
Ok this made me laugh: https://twitter.com/robinthede/status/796203201745788928
-
Trump has said he won't accept a result...even if HE wins...
-
Trump has said he won't accept a result...even if HE wins...
WTF!? you're alive! ow are you bud?
-
Holy shit. Trump is gonna win.
That's crazy. I really didn't think it was possible.
looks like it. And if he does, gives us several things to think about, doesn't it?
-
My son said that Trump would win. He said he is the one that looks most like a president :p
but our house was divided. My wife voted for Stein, I voted for Johnson, my daughter like Clinton, and my son's prediction is above. haha
-
I don't know guys - even though I didn't vote for him, if he pulls this off, it will be exciting!
-
Good news for me is that the pot law seems to be passing in CA. So at least I won't have to face the next 4 years sober.
-
Good news for me is that the pot law seems to be passing in CA. So at least I won't have to face the next 4 years sober.
:dblthumb2: :dblthumb2: :woot: :woot:
-
My son said that Trump would win. He said he is the one that looks most like a president :p
He's just a kid and kids say the darnedest things and all, but that's actually pretty sad. Hope you at least put the thought in his head that maybe that's not a good thing to think.
-
Good news for me is that the pot law seems to be passing in CA. So at least I won't have to face the next 4 years sober.
Was thinking the same thing. ;)
-
My son said that Trump would win. He said he is the one that looks most like a president :p
He's just a kid and kids say the darnedest things and all, but that's actually pretty sad. Hope you at least put the thought in his head that maybe that's not a good thing to think.
Nope, I told him only pussy grabbing men can be president!!!! come on, Charlie!!!
-
Dude, even reasonable people think things like "he just looks more like a president".
I'm not saying it's the reason Trump won but it kind of hits close to home in this particular election.
-
BTW I saw this the other day and found it interesting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HA1i6NqZJ4
-
And there we have it!
-
WHAT DID YOU GUYS JUST DO!
-
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!
-
I didn't think it was possible so I didn't prepare myself. I'm pretty down right now.
-
The crazy thing is that Clinton will probably win the popular vote, and only lost by a point or two in the states she needed to win the electoral college like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. But her lead was 3-4 points higher a week or two ago and after every major event of the campaign. If there had been a debate last week instead of three weeks ago, she would have won. If the Trump tapes had come out a week ago instead of several weeks ago, she would have won. If the FBI hadn't mentioned possibly reopening the investigation only to say never mind later, she probably would have won.
-
I do wonder how much that is true and how much it isn't. I don't know why anyone would have changed their mind based on anything in the final weeks leading up to it. If those things that happened were enough to sway your vote, you're a shit voter.
-
I doubt that. Same with if Bernie had run.
Before this election even started (years ago) I said it was the Republican's race to lose. I figured they could throw any candidate in the race and win since the general discontent around the current party was so high. While I didn't figure they'd actually just throw "any" candidate at the race, it's my opinion that this had much more to do with discontent than with the candidates. As in many of these recent elections I don't think we're actually voting for someone (some people actually are I guess) but rather against the other person. I'm actually sort of surprised Hillary didn't pull this one out based on just how Trump ran his campaign but in a society where we really only get two options and we don't like one of them, the outcome shouldn't really be all that shocking.
Now I'm saying the same thing before Trump even takes the office. This is the Democrat's race to lose next time. I'm not terribly confident that Trump is going to get much done in 4 years or that things will be perceived as any better than now and since it's basically all Republicans in control now if things turn out to still suck, it's likely going to end up the opposite way in four years.
So I have this suggestion, which the Republicans completely ignored last time: Democrats, find a candidate you like right now and prepare them for 2 years from now.
-
I agree with you there, tgm.
In two years, though, Democrats will have a hard time gaining control of either the House or the Senate. I haven't seen the numbers for this year, but in recent elections there have been more Democratic votes for the House than Republicans, but Republicans have a huge advantage because of the way the district lines are drawn and how concentrated the Democratic vote is. So even when people are fed up with the Republicans in power, it's really hard for Democrats to win the House.
In the Senate, in two years there will be a lot of very Republican areas with Senate elections, and the Democrats who are incumbents won behind Obama's 2012 election. So it will be hard for Democrats to gain then as well. It really seems like that it will be like this (whatever "this" is) for four years.
-
I meant Presidential candidate in 2 years. That gives them one year to really prep before "game time". The House/Senate thing is a whole other thing.
-
And maybe next time a little bit less shady stuff from the conventions huh?
-
That moment when you think 2020 looks/sounds way in the future but then realize it's only a few years away.
-
That moment when you think 2020 looks/sounds way in the future but then realize it's only a few years away.
I just thought about the same thing the other day
W
T
F
-
That was a terrible joke, but that would be baller. That would also mean it is the first 1 term president (which I also hope is true) in 24 years and only the second in 36 years.