Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

For a guy who says he's not a Trump fan, why does Sicatoka act so much like Trump out here?

Just because someone's exposing the authoritarian left doesn't mean they support the authoritarian right. For those of us that don't like either candidate, sure we are more than happy to poke fun at both, but you've made our lives easier by doing half of it.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Just because someone's exposing the authoritarian left doesn't mean they support the authoritarian right. For those of us that don't like either candidate, sure we are more than happy to poke fun at both, but you've made our lives easier by doing half of it.

That's funny, because you as well mysteriously always seem to post stuff from alt-right websites, even though you profess to have equal disdain for both sides. Strange how that works out.....

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Its a decent analysis behind the sensationalism but its missing a couple of things. The biggest one is that whites vote in proportion pretty closely to their % of the total population. As in whites made up about 73% of the US population and they made up 72% of the voters in 2012. Blacks actually exceeded their total % (14% of voters vs 13% of population). Hispanics always run lower because its a younger population and/or they're not full citizens. He's basically saying whites need to blow away their participation rate vs their total #'s. Possible, but not sure its probable.

It's not quite that simple. Blacks only outstripped their percentage starting with Obama. Maybe that will keep going -- we hope so -- but if not they are going to fall back to the lower numbers before. Hispanics still vote in low numbers even when you allow for age and citizenship. The reason why both blacks and Hispanics vote low is the reason poor whites do -- the poor part. The great tragedy of American politics is that the poor, the people most screwed by the status quo, exert the least influence relative to their numbers at the ballot box. And that, of course, is how they keep getting screwed.

Old people are actually great at voting, despite the assumed higher incidence of illness. For one thing, they've got a lot of free time. For another, SS and Medicare worked -- old people in the US, at least white old people, are richer than any other age cohort. And so they tend to vote because the rich always vote.

But hey, I was throwing you a bone: you have insisted that a barbarian wave isn't going to save Trump, and it's looking like you're right. He's not getting Cletus to register. That might be because he has no organization or ground game, but more likely the sheer inertia of the non-voting portion of our electorate (and all that implies as far as education and engagement) is so strong that he couldn't move the needle.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

That's funny, because you as well mysteriously always seem to post stuff from alt-right websites, even though you profess to have equal disdain for both sides. Strange how that works out.....

Well, what would you like me to post about the guy that donates money to the Clintons? Perhaps how his campaign is similar to Hitler's campaign when he started rising to power? Maybe some of his authoritarian policy ideas, such as locking us into the country with a fence?

I still hold water for no one. Not even the dude I voted for in 2012 (and yes, he's on the ballot again). If you want to keep it as Trump bashing only, then it shows your true colours.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

It's not quite that simple. Blacks only outstripped their percentage starting with Obama. Maybe that will keep going -- we hope so -- but if not they are going to fall back to the lower numbers before. Hispanics still vote in low numbers even when you allow for age and citizenship. The reason why both blacks and Hispanics vote low is the reason poor whites do -- the poor part. The great tragedy of American politics is that the poor, the people most screwed by the status quo, exert the least influence relative to their numbers at the ballot box. And that, of course, is how they keep getting screwed.

Old people are actually great at voting, despite the assumed higher incidence of illness. For one thing, they've got a lot of free time. For another, SS and Medicare worked -- old people in the US, at least white old people, are richer than any other age cohort. And so they tend to vote because the rich always vote.

But hey, I was throwing you a bone: you have insisted that a barbarian wave isn't going to save Trump, and it's looking like you're right. He's not getting Cletus to register. That might be because he has no organization or ground game, but more likely the sheer inertia of the non-voting portion of our electorate (and all that implies as far as education and engagement) is so strong that he couldn't move the needle.

Good.

Kep I think you misread what I was trying to point out. One would expect all things being equal that people would turn out to vote roughly in proportion to their % of the population. Hispanics are a special case due to a higher instance of non-citizen (but not necessarily illegal) status as well as more of them being underage.

But for both blacks and whites, they're pretty much voting in the proportions you'd expect. Blacks upped theirs a little bit due to Obama but they do turn out reliably in Presidential years. So do whites. For Trump to win the whites have to punch above their weight is my point.

I'm purely speculating on the reasons why people don't turn out. While I think illness is a big and unreported part of this (2.5M not voting in FL, how many are in wheelchairs, on oxygen or bedridden? I'm guessing a bunch) I do believe a lack of belief that their vote will make a difference is the key. Of the 10 biggest states in the nation, only FL, OH, and NC are truly in doubt. The vast majority of the missing 47M whites have to live in these states where a surge in the participation wouldn't move the dial (CA, TX, IL, NY, NJ, GA as well as smaller but still significant states like MA, MN, WA, etc).

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

It's really hard to tell because there's no simple trending on Johnson's national pop vote % (because why would there be, it's not important to the EC) but it looks like he's starting to crater. A week ago it was not unusual to see him pulling 12-14% in some states, now he's doing at best 6-8%. But that may just be comparing good and bad states for him, and maddeningly not all state polls includes him (why?? -- that is important to the EC), so maybe he'll keep drawing about 10% nationally, but it's possible his bad week was lethal.

If you just take the trending at face value it looks like most of those votes are going to Clinton, in which case as he continues to bleed out we'd expect her to pick up even more. But that could be interference effect from Trump's debate implosion. And with debates happening weekly the choppy seas aren't going to calm down until late October, so the noise in the polls is going to be irritatingly high over the next weeks.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Well, what would you like me to post about the guy that donates money to the Clintons? Perhaps how his campaign is similar to Hitler's campaign when he started rising to power? Maybe some of his authoritarian policy ideas, such as locking us into the country with a fence?

I still hold water for no one. Not even the dude I voted for in 2012 (and yes, he's on the ballot again). If you want to keep it as Trump bashing only, then it shows your true colours.

Flaggy you're not fooling anybody so take it back to the middle school playground where maybe it'll work. I do however defer to your knowledge on all things Hitler. My guess is you've studied up extensively on the man.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Kep I think you misread what I was trying to point out. One would expect all things being equal that people would turn out to vote roughly in proportion to their % of the population. Hispanics are a special case due to a higher instance of non-citizen (but not necessarily illegal) status as well as more of them being underage.

You have two mistakes here:

(1) My very point is in OTL all things aren't equal: the strongest driver of participation among eligible voters by a huge margin, even over education, is wealth, and because we color-code our poor in this country that means blacks and Hispanics vote less.

(2) My point on Hispanics is your exceptions are completely irrelevant. Even when you restrict the pool to only ELIGIBLE Hispanics, thus cutting out the underaged and non-citizen, they are still voting at a lower rate (predicted again by the cold determinism of SES).

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

It's really hard to tell because there's no simple trending on Johnson's national pop vote % (because why would there be, it's not important to the EC) but it looks like he's starting to crater. A week ago it was not unusual to see him pulling 12-14% in some states, now he's doing at best 6-8%. But that may just be comparing good and bad states for him, and maddeningly not all state polls includes him (why?? -- that is important to the EC), so maybe he'll keep drawing about 10% nationally, but it's possible his bad week was lethal.

If you just take the trending at face value it looks like most of those votes are going to Clinton, in which case as he continues to bleed out we'd expect her to pick up even more. But that could be interference effect from Trump's debate implosion. And with debates happening weekly the choppy seas aren't going to calm down until late October, so the noise in the polls is going to be irritatingly high over the next weeks.

I wouldn't be shocked if it was because a lot of polls weren't actually taking the third parties into consideration, and would only ask about the D and R candidates, because they want to continue to two-party division. Both sides are saying that a vote for Johnson/Stein is vote for (not their person), which does show the idiocy in that sort of statement.

You do make one very good point, though: The October surprise is yet to come.

 

[ericredaxe]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

In Boston in the early 90s I could walk into the Democratic primary, change my registration from Independent to Democrat, vote, then change back on the way out. It was easy, too.

It is even easier than that now if you are registered as unenrolled. You just walk in, tell them which ballot you want and vote.

For the life of me, I can't imagine why someone would register as something other than unenrolled in Massachusetts.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

I wouldn't be shocked if it was because a lot of polls weren't actually taking the third parties into consideration, and would only ask about the D and R candidates

No I'm only talking about the polls that do take 3rd party into account. The others I toss out because they aren't relevant to the analysis. This is maddening because the pollsters go to all that work and then DON'T ASK THE FUNDAMENTAL GODD-AMN QUESTION. And there is no good theoretical reason for them to do that:a prediction is supposed to model the event to be predicted as closely as possible, and unless the thirds aren't on the ballot (which I'm pretty sure is not the case for any state with the Libertarians) then they ought to be on the question.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

It is even easier than that now if you are registered as unenrolled. You just walk in, tell them which ballot you want and vote.

For the life of me, I can't imagine why someone would register as something other than unenrolled in Massachusetts.

Now I think of it, I think I was unenrolled, not Independent, because there's actually a registered Independent Party in MA, right? I was thinking of NY where I was Independent.

MD is actually the only state I ever bothered to register for a party (1) because I didn't believe in it before and (2) because MD is full of horror stories of people getting knocked off the rolls (not organized suppression, just ineptitude) and I wanted a party to also be looking over the state's shoulder and saying, "hey -- what happened to that cute guy"?

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Ya know, unless you're a card carrying knuckledragger, and we do have a few of you out here in the USCHO community, I find it hard to believe its helpful to have the Miss Universe slander go into its 4th freakin day!

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-attack-alicia-machado-miss-universe-228910

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

No I'm only talking about the polls that do take 3rd party into account. The others I toss out because they aren't relevant to the analysis. This is maddening because the pollsters go to all that work and then DON'T ASK THE FUNDAMENTAL GODD-AMN QUESTION. And there is no good theoretical reason for them to do that:a prediction is supposed to model the event to be predicted as closely as possible, and unless the thirds aren't on the ballot (which I'm pretty sure is not the case for any state with the Libertarians) then they ought to be on the question.

I did see a report that Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states. I'm happy we agree about the terrible questions, but I do wonder if it's a subtle way for the media to take people away from the other parties and make them believe only the authoritarian parties exist...

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Ya know, unless you're a card carrying knuckledragger, and we do have a few of you out here in the USCHO community, I find it hard to believe its helpful to have the Miss Universe slander go into its 4th freakin day!

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/trump-attack-alicia-machado-miss-universe-228910

SMH. He just can't help himself. He's the thinnest skinned person on the planet, and people can actually convince themselves to vote for his finger on The Button.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Now I think of it, I think I was unenrolled, not Independent, because there's actually a registered Independent Party in MA, right? I was thinking of NY where I was Independent.

MD is actually the only state I ever bothered to register for a party (1) because I didn't believe in it before and (2) because MD is full of horror stories of people getting knocked off the rolls (not organized suppression, just ineptitude) and I wanted a party to also be looking over the state's shoulder and saying, "hey -- what happened to that cute guy"?

Are you sure you mean "independent" and not "independence" in NY? A lot of people get them mixed up. Sure, you can say no party affiliation in NY, but obviously it's a closed primary state.

 

[ericredaxe]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Now I think of it, I think I was unenrolled, not Independent, because there's actually a registered Independent Party in MA, right? I was thinking of NY where I was Independent.

MD is actually the only state I ever bothered to register for a party (1) because I didn't believe in it before and (2) because MD is full of horror stories of people getting knocked off the rolls (not organized suppression, just ineptitude) and I wanted a party to also be looking over the state's shoulder and saying, "hey -- what happened to that cute guy"?

I think there used to be, but now in MA independent = unenrolled.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

I did see a report that Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states. I'm happy we agree about the terrible questions, but I do wonder if it's a subtle way for the media to take people away from the other parties and make them believe only the authoritarian parties exist...

I know you do, and bless you for being out there, but I think in this instance you are inventing an active media conspiracy.

I distinguish between what I'd call active and passive conspiracies. I believe they are so few active conspiracies -- ones in which there are people deliberately conspiring -- that they nearly do not exist. Voter suppression, gerrymandering, and bribery (lobbying) are the only important active conspiracies that I can actually think of that definitely exist. The DNC Screw Job on Sanders was an active conspiracy between DNC officials and the Clinton campaign, but it was small potatoes. I'd assume there was probably a similar conspiracy between the RNC and the other campaigns to Stop Trump, but they were incapable.

Passive conspiracies, though, are more frequent, insidious, and likely powerful. The most glaring passive conspiracy is the plutocracy -- the literal subversion of democracy by the 1%. But I don't think there are gatherings at Bilderberg (or the subbasement of Heritage) where guys pound out the details. I think it is the general direction of the current of economics and government for the rich to increasingly dominate as long as they are not thwarted by strong contrary force. The "conspiracy" doesn't need to be pushed -- at most, things that would counter it, like an independent press or labor organizations, are permitted to wither.

On the third parties, we have an obvious active conspiracy by the major parties to lock them out, combined with a passive conspiracy of the horse-race style of media coverage, which shuts them out. I really wish Trump had lost the nom to Cruz and run third party. That would have been one helluva run, and with billions in free advertising while the two majors eviscerated each other... who knows?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

Are you sure you mean "independent" and not "independence" in NY? A lot of people get them mixed up. Sure, you can say no party affiliation in NY, but obviously it's a closed primary state.

We're talking about 30 years ago. I don't really remember. I might have been a Whig for all I know.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XIX: Escape from the Planet of Debates

For a guy who says he's not a Trump fan, why does Sicatoka act so much like Trump out here?

I've taken pokes at both candidates; however, given the tire pumping for Hillary most do here even I find myself trying to inject some of the other POV.

And if I were "acting like Trump" wouldn't I be doing a lot more name calling? Or lying?