|
Raskolnikov38 posted:He's probably confused because to donate to Bernie you have to do it through ActBlue which is a broad, generic PAC for democrats and it confused me at first as to who I was actually giving the money to. ActBlue is the processing company. since online donations are almost always via credit card you need a processing company.
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
Sounds like Bernie needs to hear about the Internet currency taking the world by storm!
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:13
|
|
|
Skwirl posted:ActBlue is the processing company. since online donations are almost always via credit card you need a processing company. It also doubles as a PAC which is what the 'tip' you can leave for them goes into. E: wait I think we're both right, they're a processing company that's registered as a 501c
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:16
|
|
|
Edit:double post
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Glenn Zimmerman posted:Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate (i.e. the casino destroyed the economy) was 20% counting PAC and individual contributions in her 2008 primary bid: 10% of Elizabeth Warren's fundraising, per Open Secrets, was from Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate. That's a fairly broad sector, and it includes much more than "the casino that destroyed the economy." And even a janitor at Goldman Sachs who sends in $5 might find himself counted as a Goldman contribution. Industry sources of donations are interesting, but I wouldn't read that much into it. PAC contributions are a more useful source to track than individual contributions as well.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
I hope this has not been talked about yet because while its early we have first election map http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/the-map-11-angles-on-the-electoral-college/   at PA
Mr Ice Cream Glove fucked around with this message at 01:41 on May 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:I hope this has not been talked about yet because while its early we have first election map https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_JUCfX1P1ik 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
Sheng-ji Yang posted:that reminds me, has gingrich given up on his presidential aspirations He hasn't announced and he is still in debt on his last one. "Postponed indefinitely" (until he has another book to sell) is more likely. Oh, trivia time, I finally found an explainer for his "the space shuttle could lift 100 tons if not for government regulation" line. You get about a 20% boost from the SRBs by replacing the powdered aluminium with powdered beryllium, and another 20% if you replace the oxidizer in the shuttle itself with liquid fluorine. I know what you are thinking, but the thing is that the (insanely hot) hydrofluoric acid would react with the (insanely hot) beryllium oxide to get you "just" beryllium fluoride and hydrochloric acid. Which are both safe as houses (You know, by comparison) The kicker is, this is actually not the most insane rocket proposal ever, that probably belongs to the modified NERVA plan - open cycle fission bed for an energy source that you then shoot dimethylmercury propellant into. Mercury makes a good propellant, its dense, liquid, and a fairly heavy element so its easier to handle and get a good momentum transfer than say xenon or hydrogen. Shame about dimethylemercury being the most potent neurotoxin known to man, one that will slip right through most container materials and kill you very very painfully in a long, drawn out way. Of course, the logic goes that with it being so deadly, it isn't useful for anything, so why not use it as part of essentially a plasma torch? Remember kids: In space, there's no there there. Which means you don't have to file an environmental impact statement 
Fried Chicken fucked around with this message at 01:52 on May 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:42
|
|
|
That's a reasonable EV map if the election is close, and it's likely to be close, but it's also possible that one candidate will lead the other by more than 10%, in which case the EV map will look radically different. If I'm quibbling, NH, NV, and CO should be colored Leans D and FL should be colored Leans R.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 01:54
|
|
|
Joementum posted:If I'm quibbling, NH, NV, and CO should be colored Leans D and FL should be colored Leans R. It's a hell of a thing having 265 in the D column.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
Nah, it doesn't really matter. The winner of the national popular vote will almost certainly have enough EVs to win.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Oh, trivia time I just learned a lot about rocket fuel in this presidential primary thread.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 03:06
|
|
precious
|
Fried Chicken posted:The kicker is, this is actually not the most insane rocket proposal ever, that probably belongs to the modified NERVA plan - open cycle fission bed for an energy source that you then shoot dimethylmercury propellant into. Mercury makes a good propellant, its dense, liquid, and a fairly heavy element so its easier to handle and get a good momentum transfer than say xenon or hydrogen. Shame about dimethylemercury being the most potent neurotoxin known to man, one that will slip right through most container materials and kill you very very painfully in a long, drawn out way. Of course, the logic goes that with it being so deadly, it isn't useful for anything, so why not use it as part of essentially a plasma torch? Were these engineers who left http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto because it was just too mainstream?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 03:13
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:The kicker is, this is actually not the most insane rocket proposal ever, that probably belongs to the modified NERVA plan 
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:The kicker is, this is actually not the most insane rocket proposal ever, that probably belongs to the modified NERVA plan - open cycle fission bed for an energy source that you then shoot dimethylmercury propellant into. Mercury makes a good propellant, its dense, liquid, and a fairly heavy element so its easier to handle and get a good momentum transfer than say xenon or hydrogen. Shame about dimethylemercury being the most potent neurotoxin known to man, one that will slip right through most container materials and kill you very very painfully in a long, drawn out way. Of course, the logic goes that with it being so deadly, it isn't useful for anything, so why not use it as part of essentially a plasma torch? Good lord. It is like they started with the idea of making use of the worst material possible and went from there. Did they propose using a briefcase nuke to separate the stages?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
Joementum posted:That's a reasonable EV map if the election is close, and it's likely to be close, but it's also possible that one candidate will lead the other by more than 10%, in which case the EV map will look radically different. I don't agree at all that the election will be close. I cannot imagine the republicans being able to mount a serious challenge at all. At most, this election will be as "close" as 2012 was.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 03:33
|
|
|
G1mby posted:Were these engineers who left http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Pluto because it was just too mainstream? Shifty Pony posted:Good lord. It is like they started with the idea of making use of the worst material possible and went from there. Did they propose using a briefcase nuke to separate the stages? I think the idea was for a deep space probe, so no one to get poisoned aboard and no one to get exposed to the radiation or exhaust. Still, there are a whole heck of a lot of crazy designs out there where people decided to focus on "what's most efficient" rather than anything else. Anyway, didn't mean to drag it off track, just a  story answered 3 years later
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 03:36
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Nah, it doesn't really matter. The winner of the national popular vote will almost certainly have enough EVs to win. I'd agree if it weren't for the fact that I was 16 in 2000, so it's the first presidential race I have serious memories of.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 04:51
|
|
|
Cubey posted:I don't agree at all that the election will be close. I cannot imagine the republicans being able to mount a serious challenge at all. At most, this election will be as "close" as 2012 was. If it's Jeb or Marco it will be almost certainly.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 04:52
|
|
|
Lazy_Liberal posted:I just learned a lot about rocket fuel in this presidential primary thread. For more fun, look up PYF's FOOF thread. There's some scary, fascinating poo poo that goes on in there, some of it including rockets and all of it involving phrases like "This is mixed with liquid TNT to make it more stable".
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 06:24
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Nah, it doesn't really matter. The winner of the national popular vote will almost certainly have enough EVs to win. Let's just for a moment imagine a fantasy scenario where it's like the 2000 election all over again. Loser of Pop vote wins EV. Think there'd be chaos/bitching/ or any serious challenging of the Electoral College? It's interesting imagining how each side would react to that. How would each side react if it was a Republican EV victory/Pop vote loss? What about a Democrat EV victory/pop vote loss?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 06:27
|
|
|
Mordiceius posted:It's interesting imagining how each side would react to that. How would each side react if it was a Republican EV victory/Pop vote loss? What about a Democrat EV victory/pop vote loss? In either scenario, the GOP will set it sights on splitting the electoral votes of states that are Democratic enough to deliver a lot of electoral votes for the presidency, but not Democratic enough that the GOP can't slip in and win the state races (Mich., Wisc., Penn.). The Republicans will relentlessly pursue that goal until it's done. In either scenario, the Democratic party will go "Gee, we should really form a task force to commission a study on the effects of the Electoral College" and then everyone will ignore the results when the study finishes 6 years later.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 06:41
|
|
|
Cubey posted:I don't agree at all that the election will be close. you've demonstrated very little comprehension of what factors actually determine elections so this isn't surprising.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
Cubey posted:I don't agree at all that the election will be close. I cannot imagine the republicans being able to mount a serious challenge at all. At most, this election will be as "close" as 2012 was. OK. I consider 2012 to have been a close election, so we're operating with different versions of the same common word. To quantify, I'll say if the spread is in the single digits, that's not a bad EV map.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 08:16
|
|
|
Joementum posted:OK. I consider 2012 to have been a close election, so we're operating with different versions of the same common word. To quantify, I'll say if the spread is in the single digits, that's not a bad EV map. I guess when I think of a race being 'close', I mean a race in which both sides have a roughly equal shot of winning. That never seemed to be the case in 2012 outside of a very few selective and obviously biased polls.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 09:27
|
|
|
You mean skewed polls.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 10:33
|
|
|
Dan Didio posted:You mean skewed polls. Unskewed polls! The guy claiming Romney was going to win like Reagan did in 1980
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
.
BristolSOF fucked around with this message at 15:56 on Jun 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 12:37
|
|
|
Pillowpants posted:Unskewed polls! The guy claiming Romney was going to win like Reagan did in 1980 In addition to the unskewed polls guy, I seem to remember other, more nationally recognized polls like Gallup that had the race as being too close to call, if not slightly in Romney's favor.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
Cubey posted:In addition to the unskewed polls guy, I seem to remember other, more nationally recognized polls like Gallup that had the race as being too close to call, if not slightly in Romney's favor. Rasmussen polls were usually hilariously generous to Mittens.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 12:55
|
|
|
BristolSOF posted:Speaking of Fantasy scenario - what would the past few elections look like if every state's EV was proportional? what would the current projections look like? Using ME and NE's method, which allocates EVs by CD and then gives the extra two EVs to the winner of the state-wide popular vote, 2012 would look like this:  You can play around with it here: http://www.270towin.com/alternative-electoral-college-allocation-methods/ Joementum fucked around with this message at 13:42 on May 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 13:40
|
|
|
Why is Texas so staunchly republican, anyway? Does it have a huge rural population, or what?
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 14:25
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:Why is Texas so staunchly republican, anyway? Does it have a huge rural population, or what? Suburban and rural, yes, but also The South.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 14:28
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:Why is Texas so staunchly republican, anyway? Does it have a huge rural population, or what? Most of those blue districts (especially near Mexico) you see are actually incredibly rural. Texas just has a lot of white people of various classes. Their urbanization rate is actually just below the Northeast in general and right above Washington State.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 14:36
|
|
|
The blue districts in Texas make up like 40-50% of the population. On that map you have Dallas, Harris, Travis, and Brazos county going blue. That's the 4 largest cities in Texas. Also El Paso. Those small blue dots are basically the city limits in Texas.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:Why is Texas so staunchly republican, anyway? Does it have a huge rural population, or what? A lot of the rural counties (particularly in the panhandle and everything else west of the Brazos) are very sparse and the actual share of rural population is smaller than most other southern states. The real key is that Houston, Dallas and San Antonio are all surrounded by vast white-flight suburbs that outvote the minorities living there. This applies at the local level as well as the national: Houston ought to be more leftist/liberal than it is, but the municipality has incorporated so many far-flung suburbs that it's light blue at best. Texas is one of the states (like most of the south) where the post-New Deal realignment took longer at the local level than the national. They were electing Democratic governors and statewide officials into the 90s. PupsOfWar fucked around with this message at 14:50 on May 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
FWIW, the latin population in Texas is rising, which is gradually purpling the state. I think in another few elections there's the distinct possibility texas will be up for grabs.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
PupsOfWar posted:Texas is one of the states (like most of the south) where the post-New Deal realignment took longer at the local level than the national. They were electing Democratic governors and statewide officials into the 90s. Same thing here in Oklahoma, and the local Democratic Party still seems to hold up to that, though unfortunately that just has allowed the Republican Party to hoover up all the votes and depressed left-leaning voters. Its interesting being in a state that has such a consensus on conservatism.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Using ME and NE's method, which allocates EVs by CD and then gives the extra two EVs to the winner of the state-wide popular vote, 2012 would look like this: Wow the Central Valley is not as republican as it seems apparently.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 16:52 |
|
|
Ignite Memories posted:FWIW, the latin population in Texas is rising, which is gradually purpling the state. I think in another few elections there's the distinct possibility texas will be up for grabs. I'm not one of those "Actually Latinos are conservative, look at 2014  " types but given the way American politics operates, it's going to take an overwhelming majority before the entire house of cards crumbles.When it happens, it'll be pretty fun though.
|
|
#
?
May 9, 2015 15:38
|
|