Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

[alfablue]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Yeah, but how many times in the past 40 years has the winner of the presidential election actually received more than 50% of the popular vote?

If by that you mean 51% or more- '12, '08, '88, '84. With Ronnie in '84 getting almost 59%.

It's interesting to note that President Obama twice got over 51%, but Clinton never actually cleared 50%. But Bill's average margin of victory was better than Barack's.

Turnout in '08 was the largest in almost 50 years (Nixon in '68 had just over 60% of the time).

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Hopefully she does. The voting age population went up 5.3M between 2008 and 2012. Say it goes up another 5M in 2016, for a total of 10M since 2008.

At 2012 turnout rates (55%) we're looking at 132M votes cast. In other words, the VAP has grown so much that a 2012 turnout in 2016 will produce a 2008 total of votes.

She'd need 66M just to get to 50%, so let's hope she gets to 70M.

What I'd like and what's necessary aren't the same things. 66M wins the election, even factoring in voter apathy at a 3rd term, disgruntled Bernie or Busters, and greater than usual 3rd party support. Recall 3rd party usually gets 1% of the vote, or over 1M votes. I can easily see them doubling or even tripling that this year. 3M votes or 2-3% leaves a 50-47-3 race in a sorta worse case but still a win scenario. Popular vote would be 66M-61M-3M for an approx. total of 130M.

If she gets 70M votes that's 53%. Now you're approaching Obama in 2008 levels. I'd love to see that, but I'm not predicting it quite yet. To do that she's holding 3rd party votes to their usual 1M or so, picking up the new Bernie voters and young Hispanics, and converting a small but decent amount of Romney voters to her side.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Understood. Factoring in everything (demographics, Hillary's unfavorables, Trumps almost comical repulsiveness with everyone other than old white men) my fearless prediction as of August 1st is Hillary wins the popular vote 52-45-3.

 

[rufus]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Talking as a D...what does a moderate R do? Do they vote for Trump knowing he's a debacle? Do they not vote? Do they go I even though it isn't even an option? He has as much of an opinion as anyone (and he's an adult about it), so I welcome his feedback. (although it doesn't mean I won't argue with him ;p )

They can vote for whoever they personally feel they need to. I voted for John Anderson way back in 1980. Couldn't vote for Reagan, and no matter his virtues as a human being, Jimmy Carter was not an effective president. It's just my opinion that you can't just choose to sit things out and just complain about how bad the state of things are. The very least you have to do is cast a ballot. No matter how poor the options are.

But it just boggles my mind that someone can honestly claim that a vote for Hillary is just as disastrous or distasteful as a vote for Trump. You've got to be the partisan of partisans to even contemplate that thought.

 

[rufus]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Kasich, Romney and Michael Steele come to mind as Republicans who have put country (and sanity) ahead of partisanship and have had strong language against Trump. Cruz is there too, but that's not Cruz being noble -- he's fine with a dangerous delusional a-hole running the country, he just wants it to be himself.

On the other end, Ryan has destroyed his credibility almost as much as Christie. Newt, Corker and Pence are likewise going down on the wrong side of history. And what can you say about jackholes like Rudy, Sessions, and The Two Kings (Steve and Pete)? They're even crazier than Trump, so their support for him isn't craven or calculated -- it's actual belief.

I have a feeling the lasting split in the GOP may be generational. The only ones who have a chance to emerge from this with any dignity are the ones too young right now to have to go on record about Augustus the Ape.

Wait, Ryan had credibility? Since when?

The only people who thought Ryan had credibility were the talking heads and political pundits who thought his "budget" that did nothing to trim the federal deficit but destroyed the social safety net meant he was a serious and courageous thinker. To anyone else, it was just more of the same old Republican party.

 

[MaizeRage]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

No offense to Jane Steen and the Green Party, but while her specific goals and policies may vary, she's running as Pretty Much a Democrat.

I take it back. Apparently, Jean Stain is running on a platform of vaccines cause autism and WiFi is poisoning our children. Yikes. http://gizmodo.com/now-jill-stein-thinks-wi-fi-might-be-hurting-kids-1784664503

 

[burd]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Idle thought.

It is clear from many threads on this site and from this thread in particular that confirmation bias affects us all, though it seems to have a shorter and thicker tether on some than it does on others (depending on your viewpoint, I suppose). A while back, Kepler commented about a curriculum he felt civics teachers ought ought to teach which would enhance students' potential to be better citizens and consumers of political salesmanship. Don't ask me to be more specific--this memory is vague, like so much else. It strikes me that we would all be better voters if we were more aware of dissonance theory and how we are hardwired to rationalize our opinions in a way that confirms our biases. The discussions on this thread and the behavior of voters in this presidential season show not only that rational and objective analysis is in short supply but that we are also vulnerable to marketing efforts in all areas in our lives that link to our existing biases and manipulate us to sell ideas and products.

Dissonance theory is in every Intro to Psych textbook any of us has ever read, though it probably gets only a couple of pages. But it is hard science, I think, having been subject to legitimate, controlled studies. Am I naive in thinking high school students could benefit from a class devoted to the science of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias? I don't know for sure what could be accomplished from such a class, but it seems most of us have no chance of recognizing and resisting the cognitive tricks we tend to play on ourselves if we are not educated thoroughly about it. In a modern world in which information is coming at us at a speed and in ways that makes it almost subliminal, it seems like the more tools we have to deal with that information and the ways it is being used to manipulate us the better. Is it useless and wishful thinking to hope we could be better citizens and voters if we understood more about our own slavery to preexisting opinion and the ridiculous lengths we go to in order to convince ourselves we are right? It is legitimate science, so it's not like we would be trying to socially engineer our kids. Reading this post, the idea seems a little idiotic, but what the he!!.

In case you haven't already figured this out; yes, I think GOPers should be given first option to take the class.

 

[WeAreNDHockey]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Idle thought.

It is clear from many threads on this site and from this thread in particular that confirmation bias affects us all, though it seems to have a shorter and thicker tether on some than it does on others (depending on your viewpoint, I suppose). A while back, Kepler commented about a curriculum he felt civics teachers ought ought to teach which would enhance students' potential to be better citizens and consumers of political salesmanship. Don't ask me to be more specific--this memory is vague, like so much else. It strikes me that we would all be better voters if we were more aware of dissonance theory and how we are hardwired to rationalize our opinions in a way that confirms our biases. The discussions on this thread and the behavior of voters in this presidential season show not only that rational and objective analysis is in short supply but that we are also vulnerable to marketing efforts in all areas in our lives that link to our existing biases and manipulate us to sell ideas and products.

Dissonance theory is in every Intro to Psych textbook any of us has ever read, though it probably gets only a couple of pages. But it is hard science, I think, having been subject to legitimate, controlled studies. Am I naive in thinking high school students could benefit from a class devoted to the science of cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias? I don't know for sure what could be accomplished from such a class, but it seems most of us have no chance of recognizing and resisting the cognitive tricks we tend to play on ourselves if we are not educated thoroughly about it. In a modern world in which information is coming at us at a speed and in ways that makes it almost subliminal, it seems like the more tools we have to deal with that information and the ways it is being used to manipulate us the better. Is it useless and wishful thinking to hope we could be better citizens and voters if we understood more about our own slavery to preexisting opinion and the ridiculous lengths we go to in order to convince ourselves we are right? It is legitimate science, so it's not like we would be trying to socially engineer our kids. Reading this post, the idea seems a little idiotic, but what the he!!.

In case you haven't already figured this out; yes, I think GOPers should be given first option to take the class.

I try to be aware of how my own biases and experiences may cloud my opinions. I will seek out and read editorials and op-eds by people who have political views I do not hold for this reason. I read books on topics I am interested in that have a vastly different viewpoint than the one I hold just so I don't always fall victim to confirmation bias. It probably doesn't work all the time, but I think it helps me have a better understanding of why I feel the way I do about certain topics.

The following anecdote is not exactly the same thing, but follows the path of this topic. I spent the last week at a training retreat with a number of co-workers. Many of these people are far to my left on the political issues of the day, whether they be social issues, or economic or moral issues. During lunch one day we got into a discussion of the black lives matter movement and what can sometimes seem like the daily reports of a police shooting of unarmed black men. One of my colleagues took exception to what she perceived as blanket statements condemning all police officers. Our discussion actually ranged from shootings to overall police tactics, different ways of deploying the police, how the FOP and other police unions could do a better job as effective representatives to police officers actual needs. All this co-worker heard though was we were saying that all cops are racist killer thugs. Nothing we said could move her from that, or from her stance that in reality virtually all police officers (99.9% supposedly) were in fact heroic and deserving of praise. After 10 or 12 minute of this something dawned on me and I asked her "Who are you related to that works in law enforcement?" What do you know, her live-in boyfriend of years is a cop. If you asked this woman to speak for 2 minutes each on the top social topics of the day -- one of them being the stuff we talk about in the "Cops" threads -- the way she spoke about the first 9 would probably have you convinced she was more down on law enforcement than even I am. Yet she was clueless to how her close, intimate relationship with a cop could possibly be clouding her viewpoint. "Has nothing to do with it, I just happen to know that virtually all police officers are not part of the problem," was her response when asked about the potential for bias caused by her relationship.

 

[French Rage]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

So, um, 538 moved a bit today.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

So, um, 538 moved a bit today.

LOL. Wow.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Wait, Ryan had credibility? Since when?

The only people who thought Ryan had credibility were the talking heads and political pundits who thought his "budget" that did nothing to trim the federal deficit but destroyed the social safety net meant he was a serious and courageous thinker. To anyone else, it was just more of the same old Republican party.

Ryan had credibility on the right. He tooted that ridiculous Randian budget plan that makes him the house pet of the corporate cons. But he's a classic victim of a fence-straddler crotch impaling. His balls are gone.

 

[bronconick]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

I take it back. Apparently, Jean Stain is running on a platform of vaccines cause autism and WiFi is poisoning our children. Yikes. http://gizmodo.com/now-jill-stein-thinks-wi-fi-might-be-hurting-kids-1784664503

Don't forget homeopathy. From a doctor, no less.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Don't forget homeopathy. From a doctor, no less.

For f-cks sake, this is why liberals can't have nice things.

 

[BassAle]

I take it back. Apparently, Jean Stain is running on a platform of vaccines cause autism and WiFi is poisoning our children. Yikes. http://gizmodo.com/now-jill-stein-thinks-wi-fi-might-be-hurting-kids-1784664503

So you have "free market alone will solve climate change" turn Medicare over to the states Gary Johnson and "Jenny Mcarthy is my surgeon general" Jill Stein. I'm going with Hillary.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

"Jenny Mcarthy is my surgeon general" Jill Stein.

The frustrating thing is liberalism went on a 20-year death march to escape the "woolly-headed" stigma and become the hard-headed party. But these hippie morons are still out there peddling their illiterate Age of Aquarius navel-gazing BS.

It's fine to be wary of the sociopaths who run corporations -- we need to be, they are dangerous. But crunch the numbers and get the facts; go to grad school and learn the science. We are the natural pro-science, anti-superstition party. Don't bring hugs to a data fight because you look like an idiot and you stain the whole movement.

And a bath wouldn't hurt.

 

[BassAle]

LOL. Wow.

If the world were fair Trump and Johnson would be switched. That ******* has no business even being at 35%

 

[Jimjamesak]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Wow some of the conservative reactions to the Khans is pretty terrible. Everything from "Hillary never sacrificed anything either!" (Forgetting the fact that women were never allowed combat roles when she was military age) to "You never sacrificed anything either Khan!" to "what about those gold star mothers from BENGHAZI!"

 

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

LOL. Wow.

It would appear the chimp finally flung too much poo

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

This is what you've brought us, GOP. I hope you're proud of yourselves.

At a Monday campaign event in Columbus, Ohio, Donald Trump teed up for a potential challenge to the integrity of the fall general election, an escalation of his rhetoric about the "rigged" primary system.

"I'm afraid the election's gonna be rigged, I have to be honest," Trump told the crowd.

While Trump has often questioned the integrity of the primary contests in both parties, his newest remarks seemed to begin laying groundwork for him to contest the Nov. 8 election results.

It was a line of attack that longtime Trump adviser Roger Stone pushed on a podcast with Breitbart's Milo Yiannopoulos that was posted online Friday. Stone suggested voter fraud is "widespread" and said if Hillary Clinton wins a state like Florida after polls show Trump in the lead, the election would be "illegitimate."

"If there’s voter fraud, this election will be illegitimate, the election of the winner will be illegitimate, we will have a constitutional crisis, widespread civil disobedience, and the government will no longer be the government," Stone said. He also promised a "bloodbath" if the Democrats attempt to "steal" the election.

Voter fraud is so statistically rare as to be virtually nonexistent, data has shown.

These people are an existential threat to the democratic government of our country. That is not an exaggeration.

 

[The Rube]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XV: Before & After: Dancing in the Streets of Philadelphia!

*puts on tinfoil hat*

The system is so rigged, that I have to bow out, Trump said in a news conference......

Wouldn't that be something?