USPOL August: Quoth The Donald, "Arzy more."

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL August: Quoth The Donald, "Arzy more."

PerniciousKnid: Sep 13, 2006

Malmesbury Monster posted:

What I'm saying, though, is that the forces pushing Brexit didn't get stronger because politicians ignored them, they were strengthened because politicians enabled them.

Cameron might've been the proximate cause, but the apathy directed by EU institutions toward the existential worries of the commoners is what fed the initial movement. The elites just say "GDP is increasing, everything is fine, we rock", up until GDP falls, then it's the common folk who are blamed and subjected to austerity.

# ? Aug 12, 2016 19:57

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 14:19

Luigi Thirty: Apr 30, 2006; Emergency confection port.

https://twitter.com/alivitali/status/764173187886223360

Is it possible for Trump's black support to go negative?

# ? Aug 12, 2016 19:58

Pakled: Aug 6, 2011; WE ARE SMART

Crow Jane posted:

My weed dealer, a gay black man who relies on Obamacare and sells drugs for a living, was complaining about how both candidates are equally bad when I stopped by last week. I didn't even know where to begin to respond.

You can't blame him, marijuana legalization would ruin his livelihood. :colbert:

# ? Aug 12, 2016 19:58

Teddybear: May 16, 2009; Look! A teddybear doll!
It's soooo cute!

Pakled posted:

You can't blame him, marijuana legalization would ruin his livelihood.

He could go legit. New dispensaries need some knowledgeable people.

# ? Aug 12, 2016 20:00

Mr Hootington: Jul 24, 2008; I'M HAVING A HOOT EATING CORNETTE THE LONG WAY

Dr. Angela Ziegler posted:

Ignoring 2020, since anyone who runs against 4 more years of mi abuela gets what they deserve, will 8 years be long enough to keep the petty fascists from just doing it again? What's to stop someone like a true-believer terrible person like say Laura Ingraham from Trumping her way into the nomination?

The latest Keeping it 1600 had a good discussion with a republican PAC running joker named Mike Murphy. His thought is after Trump is crushed they will have a bit of an internal war that the "real conservatives" are gearing up to fight and that they need to pretty much trick minorities into liking them.

# ? Aug 12, 2016 20:02

Mahoning: Feb 3, 2007

Teddybear posted:

He could go legit. New dispensaries need some knowledgeable people.

Can you do that from your couch?

# ? Aug 12, 2016 20:05

OddObserver: Apr 3, 2009

haveblue posted:

They're also likely to come up with new rules that give them much stronger ways to ratfuck the populist at the convention in the future.

Convention is too late, IMHO. GOP primary voters were doing rally-round the-leader way before that (was it Indiana primary, or maybe earlier?), and seemed to have been ticked off by some delegate games before that. Going against the primary/party base electorate at that point would have had a high chance of blowing up the party (while they can hope things will blow over by next election...)

# ? Aug 12, 2016 20:06

Geostomp: Oct 22, 2008; Unite: MASH!!
~They've got the bad guys on the run!~

Ice Phisherman posted:

Yeah.

Also I think it's lowering expectations. "Trump doesn't have to win. He's set the tone."

I honestly think he's right in a way. Trump has injected a lot of crazy into politics and its going to take a while to wash it out. That's if people weren't also buying into the crazy and actively encouraging it.

What bothers me about this election more than others is the amazing amount of low to no information voters who've washed into politics on a wave of populism. It happened on the left with Bernie's supporters and it's happening on the right with Donald's. They're people who don't understand the political process at all, are often learning (incorrectly) how politics works now by setting roots in ignorance that is going to last for a long time and as a result of their first exposure to politics being populism and a particularly crazy and stupid form of it are going to linger in the political substrate for years and years to come. Normally I know more than my fair share of people who are learning about politics for the first time in an election, but the number of them who don't understand how anything works while complaining about a broken system that they don't understand is staggering. People are having their first real exposure to politics this time around and its roots are set deeply in anger, cynicism, deception, fear and hatred. And we've got months to go.

It's only going to get uglier and stupider.

That's what worries me about Trump. He himself is mercifully being rejected by sane people, but he has already done damage to the country just by indulging the worst of it for support. Giving validation to naked bullying, bigotry, and ignorance solely by rising so high. When he fails, still take decades to remove his stench.

Yinlock posted:

Their demographic isn't getting any younger, and without Scalia they won't be able to get away with nearly as many shenanigans to get around that. Old White People have been outnumbered, which is why they present this election as the CUSP OF APOCALYPSE and the Democrats are presenting it as A New Hope

Yeah. The old, scared white demographic is at the tipping point in demographics. They cannot comprehend the world passing them by because they've always been part of the dominant bloc, so they have become desperate to prevent it from happening. Things have changed so much that even they can't really fool themselves with the old "silent majority" idea and latched onto Trump because they saw him as their last shot by mistaking his belligerence and ego for dedication. After this election, the Republicans will have to either change and stop pandering to this bloc or wither into irrelevance with them.

# ? Aug 12, 2016 20:11

Zwabu: Aug 7, 2006

The Republicans around me seem to be reduced to the point where their only hope rests in Julian Assange swinging onstage and tossing a bunch of paper mache thunderbolts to smite their enemies. I mean, they kind of realize they're in real deep poo poo.

Speaking of which, I have a friend or two supporting Clinton who choose to consume themselves with worry about this same thing. My position is this: I think there's a remote possibility Wikileaks could have something that could have some impact on the election, although if they do it's probably something fairly weak sauce like this ambassador stuff that's just come out of Judicial Watch (I'm suspecting that was it, Assange's death blow that's gonna put Hillary in prison).

But... Why worry about that? It's pointless. You might as well worry about some other rare event like your candidate literally getting struck by lightning before the election. It's a rare and unlikely event that you have no control over in any case.

Furthermore, Trump's ship is on fire and sinking. If you were trying to help him, and sink her, and you had anything significant, why would you hold it in reserve at this point? Anything really damaging has a LOT more impact early in the race when you can tip the balance from a "strong Hillary win" with the associated narrative to a situation tilted towards Trump with associated narrative.

October surprise stuff only might have impact if it's a close race like GWB/Gore or GWB/Kerry. If your candidate is at the point where they will very soon no longer be viewed as viable by almost anyone, whatever you have in reserve might not mean anything unless it's live boy dead girl territory. Does that reasoning not make sense?

Zwabu fucked around with this message at 20:18 on Aug 12, 2016

# ? Aug 12, 2016 20:15

Unzip and Attack: Mar 3, 2008; USPOL May

Mr Hootington posted:

The latest Keeping it 1600 had a good discussion with a republican PAC running joker named Mike Murphy. His thought is after Trump is crushed they will have a bit of an internal war that the "real conservatives" are gearing up to fight and that they need to pretty much trick minorities into liking them.

Hahahaha good loving luck - there are these things called "primaries" and if your goal is to lure minorities into the fold, you've kind of hosed yourself by training your base to the dogwhistle for the last 50 years.

# ? Aug 12, 2016 20:14

Ice Phisherman: Apr 12, 2007; Swimming upstream
into the sunset

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

There is no "they" left to coordinate attempts at reform. The party structure has too little remaining control over candidates and primaries.

I always had a sense of this but I've never known just how extensive it was. Can you elaborate on this and/or do you have any links?

Geostomp posted:

That's what worries me about Trump. He himself is mercifully being rejected by sane people, but he has already done damage to the country just by indulging the worst of it for support. Giving validation to naked bullying, bigotry, and ignorance solely by rising so high. When he fails, still take decades to remove his stench.

I think it's not exactly Trump that it's emanating from. He's both a cause and a symptom, but mostly I think he falls into the symptom category beyond pushing the whole birthing thing for most of a decade. I feel like the real problem is coming from a number of ultra-right and alt-right echo chambers where they only talk to themselves. On the shallow end you have places like Fox which honestly aren't as bad anymore, not because they've changed their format, but because the media has gotten worse. You also have churches which are encouraging strands of political thought which smash directly into pluralism and egalitarianism. I think the biggest dissemination though are right wing internet sites and right wing radio. Places where the last of the ad funding, which is now one of the last moderating factors (corporations), either doesn't exist or doesn't care if you say something racist or crazy because they're catering to a niche market.

# ? Aug 12, 2016 20:22

wilderthanmild: Jun 21, 2010; Posting shit; Grimey Drawer

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/lp/volunteer-to-be-a-trump-election-observer

Trump is looking for "Election Observers". Is this a normal thing that candidates/parties do, or is this gonna be some poo poo he's gonna use to cause poo poo after he loses horribly?

"ALL OF MY ELECTION OBSERVERS REPORTED ELECTION FRAUD!(Because they saw someone who looked foreign)"

# ? Aug 12, 2016 20:24

WoodrowSkillson: Feb 24, 2005; *Gestures at 60 years of Lions history*

wilderthanmild posted:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/lp/volunteer-to-be-a-trump-election-observer

Trump is looking for "Election Observers" is this a normal thing that candidates/parties do, or is this gonna be some "ALL OF MY ELECTION OBSERVERS REPORTED ELECTION FRAUD!(Because they saw someone who looked foreign)" poo poo he's gonna use to cause poo poo after he loses horribly.

its usual

# ? Aug 12, 2016 20:24

Random Asshole: Nov 8, 2010

Teddybear posted:

He could go legit. New dispensaries need some knowledgeable people.

Sadly people with criminal records are being locked out of the legal weed system, because god forbid we allow disadvantaged people to participate in a growing industry: http://www.vox.com/2016/3/17/11254852/marijuana-legalization-racism-industry

# ? Aug 12, 2016 20:25

computer parts: Nov 18, 2010; PLEASE CLAP

Geostomp posted:

That's what worries me about Trump. He himself is mercifully being rejected by sane people, but he has already done damage to the country just by indulging the worst of it for support. Giving validation to naked bullying, bigotry, and ignorance solely by rising so high. When he fails, still take decades to remove his stench.

Nope, what you're seeing has always existed.

# ? Aug 12, 2016 20:25

vyelkin: Jan 2, 2011

wilderthanmild posted:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/lp/volunteer-to-be-a-trump-election-observer

Trump is looking for "Election Observers". Is this a normal thing that candidates/parties do, or is this gonna be some poo poo he's gonna use to cause poo poo after he loses horribly?

"ALL OF MY ELECTION OBSERVERS REPORTED ELECTION FRAUD!(Because they saw someone who looked foreign)"

He's going to have no GOTV effort but will have election observers, so when they observe that everyone there is voting for Hillary they can claim it was rigged.

# ? Aug 12, 2016 20:26

Teddybear: May 16, 2009; Look! A teddybear doll!
It's soooo cute!

wilderthanmild posted:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/lp/volunteer-to-be-a-trump-election-observer

Trump is looking for "Election Observers". Is this a normal thing that candidates/parties do, or is this gonna be some poo poo he's gonna use to cause poo poo after he loses horribly?

"ALL OF MY ELECTION OBSERVERS REPORTED ELECTION FRAUD!(Because they saw someone who looked foreign)"

Nah, it's fairly standard for campaigns to have observers at polling places, especially in places they're concerned about. What role they can play varies from state to state, but I believe they can observe the counting and challenge ballots for inadequacy or error.

# ? Aug 12, 2016 20:27

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Random rear end in a top hat posted:

Sadly people with criminal records are being locked out of the legal weed system, because god forbid we allow disadvantaged people to participate in a growing industry: http://www.vox.com/2016/3/17/11254852/marijuana-legalization-racism-industry

The legalization effort in Oakland CA is trying counteracting that by reserving 50% of permits for legal public weed stores for people who have been convicted of a drug crime or live in specific neighborhoods where drug arrests were high.

Sadly few people who meet this qualification also have the money to open a new business as 50+% owner.

# ? Aug 12, 2016 20:28

Goatman Sacks: Apr 4, 2011; by FactsAreUseless

Luigi Thirty posted:

https://twitter.com/alivitali/status/764173187886223360

Is it possible for Trump's black support to go negative?

I wonder if he internally had to fight off a "black men aren't fathers" joke when he made that statement.

# ? Aug 12, 2016 20:29

poor life choice: Jul 21, 2006

WoodrowSkillson posted:

its usual

Help Me Stop Crooked Hillary From Rigging This Election!

# ? Aug 12, 2016 20:39

TheBigAristotle: Feb 8, 2007; I'm tired of hearing about money, money, money, money, money.
I just want to play the game, drink Pepsi, wear Reebok.; Grimey Drawer

zoux posted:

Here's Hannity trying to make the Hillary is frail conspiracy theory real.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKrO_89DqQw

This video would be pathetic if it weren't so disturbing. They equate Hillary reacting to some reporter and tripping on a plane doorway to mental deficiency. Also he cites the front page of the Drudge Report as a source, specifically the 49% supporting candidates releasing medical records (ignoring the larger percentage who want to see Trump's taxes)

Ben Carson joins him for commentary.

Fun fact: Sean Hannity dropped out of college to become a conservative radio host. He does, however, have an honorary degree from Jerry Falwell's Liberty University.

TheBigAristotle fucked around with this message at 20:45 on Aug 12, 2016

# ? Aug 12, 2016 20:43

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Nate Silver writes up all our Clinton fan fiction with numbers attached to it:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-clinton-landslide-would-look-like/?ex_cid=538fb

Nate Silver posted:

We�re going to spend a lot of time over the next 87 days contemplating the possibility of a Donald Trump presidency. Trump is a significant underdog � he has a 13 percent chance of winning the election according to our polls-only model and a 23 percent chance according to polls-plus. But those probabilities aren�t that small. For comparison, you have a 17 percent chance of losing a �game� of Russian roulette.

But there�s another possibility staring us right in the face: A potential Hillary Clinton landslide. Our polls-only model projects Clinton to win the election by 7.7 percentage points, about the same margin by which Barack Obama beat John McCain in 2008. And it assigns a 35 percent chance to Clinton winning by double digits.

Our other model, polls-plus, is much more conservative about Clinton�s prospects. If this were an ordinary election, the smart money would be on the race tightening down the stretch run, and coming more into line with economic �fundamentals� that suggest the election ought to be close. Since this is how the polls-plus model �thinks,� it projects Clinton to win by around 4 points, about the margin by which Obama beat Mitt Romney in 2012 � a solid victory but a long way from a landslide.

But the theory behind �fundamentals� models is that economic conditions prevail because most other factors are fought to a draw. In a normal presidential election, both candidates raise essentially unlimited money and staff their campaigns with hundreds of experienced professionals. In a normal presidential election, both candidates are good representatives of their party�s traditional values and therefore unite almost all their party�s voters behind them. In a normal presidential election, both candidates have years of experience running for office and deftly pivot away from controversies to exploit their opponents� weaknesses. In a normal presidential election, both candidates target a broad enough range of demographic groups to have a viable chance of reaching 51 percent of the vote. This may not be a normal presidential election because while most of those things are true for Clinton, it�s not clear that any of them apply to Trump.

A related theory is that contemporary presidential elections are bound to be relatively close because both parties have high floors on their support. Indeed, we�ve gone seven straight elections without a double-digit popular vote victory (the last one was Ronald Reagan�s in 1984), the longest such streak since 1876-1900.

As with other theories of this kind, however, there�s the risk of mistaking what�s happened in the recent past for some sort of iron law of politics. Historically, the U.S. has ebbed and flowed between periods of close presidential elections � such in the late 19th century or early 21st century � and eras in which there were plenty of lopsided ones (every election in the 1920s and 1930s was a blowout).

These patterns seem to have some relationship with partisanship, with highly partisan epochs tending to produce close elections by guaranteeing each party its fair share of support. Trump�s nomination, however, reflects profound disarray within the Republican Party. Furthermore, about 30 percent of Republican or Republican-leaning voters have an unfavorable view of Trump. How many of them will vote for Clinton is hard to say, but parties facing this much internal strife, such as Republicans in 1964 or Democrats in 1972 or 1980, have often suffered landslide losses.

Perhaps the strongest evidence for a potential landslide against Trump is in the state-by-state polling, which has shown him underperforming in any number of traditionally Republican states. It�s not just Georgia and Arizona, where polls have shown a fairly close race all year. At various points, polls have shown Clinton drawing within a few percentage points of Trump � and occasionally even leading him � in states such as Utah, South Carolina, Texas, Alaska, Kansas and even Mississippi.

Just how bad could it get? Let�s start by giving Clinton the 332 electoral votes that Obama won in 2012. That�s obviously not a safe assumption: The race could shift back toward Trump, and even if it doesn�t, Clinton could lose states such as Iowa or Nevada, where her polling has been middling even after her convention bounce. But as I said, we�re going to focus on Clinton�s upside case today.

So I�m going to list the states Romney won in order of how easy it is for Clinton to flip them, according to our polls-only model.1 The number in parentheses by each state represents the point at which the model estimates it would flip to Clinton, based on her lead in the national popular vote. For instance, South Carolina (+9.5) means that Clinton would be favored in South Carolina if she leads by at least 9.5 percentage points nationally, but not by less than that. These projections are based on where the model has each state projected currently, along with each state�s elasticity score, a measure of how responsive it is to changes in the national environment. Here goes:

North Carolina (+3.2): It wouldn�t be any surprise if Clinton carried North Carolina, which Obama narrowly won in 2008. But Obama lost North Carolina in 2012 despite winning by about 4 percentage points nationally. This year, it looks like Clinton would win North Carolina with a 3 percentage point national victory. In other words, North Carolina has drifted slightly bluer relative to the rest of the country and is closer to being a true tipping-point state this year.

Arizona (+7.1): Arizona and Georgia have been flickering between light blue and light red in our polls-only projection recently. That�s because the model figures each state would be a tossup with Clinton ahead by about 7 points nationally, and that�s where the forecast has been for the past few days. Arizona is the fourth-most-Hispanic state after New Mexico, Texas and California, although historically its Hispanic population has voted at relatively low rates. A strong Hispanic turnout, perhaps coupled with gains for Clinton among Mormon voters (about 6 percent of Arizona�s electorate), might swing the state to her.

Nebraska�s 2nd Congressional District (+7.1): Nebraska and Maine award one electoral vote to the winner of each congressional district. That came in handy for Obama in 2008, when he won Nebraska�s 2nd Congressional district, which consists of Omaha and most of its suburbs. District boundaries were redrawn after the 2010 Census to make them slightly tougher for Democrats, but Omaha�s highly-educated demographics � we estimate that 47 percent of voters in the district have a college degree, comparable to Virginia or Connecticut � could wind up being favorable to Clinton. There�s been no polling in the district yet, so its position on this list is based on the model�s guesses based on its demographics and voting history.

Georgia (+7.2): In some ways, Georgia might be more promising than Arizona for Democrats� long-term future. It has more electoral votes � 16 to Arizona�s 11 � and could serve as part of a bloc of states (along with Virginia and North Carolina) that could eventually offset losses for Democrats in the Rust Belt. It�s easy enough to see how Georgia�s demographics are favorable for Clinton: It has a substantial black population, but also an increasingly well-educated white population, with lots of migration from the Midwest and the Northeast.

Let�s pause here to see what the map would look like if Clinton wins by 8 percentage points nationally � close to where her lead in the polls has been over the past week or so. This map you see below is worth 375 electoral votes, close to the 365 electoral votes Obama won in 2008 when he beat McCain by 7.3 percentage points. In fact, the map is identical to 2008 but for three changes: Georgia and Arizona turn blue, while Indiana (which surprisingly went for Obama in 2008) remains red:

But let�s say Clinton continues to build her lead, instead of Trump rebounding. Which dominoes might fall next?

South Carolina (+9.5): Public Policy Polling caused a big stir on Thursday when it published a poll showing Clinton down just 2 percentage points in South Carolina � but the result shouldn�t have been all that shocking. South Carolina was only a couple of points redder than Georgia in 2012 and 2008, so if Georgia has moved to being a tie, you�d expect South Carolina to follow just a half-step behind it. True, South Carolina doesn�t have a metropolis like Atlanta, but a relatively high percentage of white voters there have college degrees.

Missouri (+10.3): It�s surprising to see Missouri, once considered a bellwether state, so far down this list. Bill Clinton won it twice, and Obama came within 4,000 votes of winning it in 2008. But now we estimate that Hillary Clinton would need to win by about 10 points nationally to claim the state. Note, however, that the recent polling in Missouri has been mixed, with polls showing everything from a 10-point lead for Trump to a slight edge for Clinton.

There�s something of a gap after South Carolina and Missouri before the next set of states. Thus, Trump might be able to hold Clinton below 400 electoral votes even if she won by 12 points nationally:

But after that, the floodgates would really open, with lots of traditionally red states in all parts of the country potentially turning toward Clinton:

Mississippi (+12.3): I�m skeptical about this one, since Mississippi presents something of a modelling challenge. You can see why it�s an attractive target for Democrats, in theory: It has the highest share of black voters in the country (after the District of Columbia). But in 2008, only 11 percent of Mississippi�s white population voted for Obama. Clinton trailed Trump by just 3 percentage points in the only poll of Mississippi, taken in March. In that poll, Clinton got 20 percent of the white vote. If she can replicate that on Election Day, the outcome could be close.

Indiana (+13.2): Obama�s win in Indiana in 2008 � one of just two times Democrats have won the state since 1940 � might be hard to duplicate. He benefited that year from investing in the ground game in a state that is usually ignored, and from Indiana�s connections with Chicago. Plus, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence is Trump�s running mate. Still, if Clinton stretches her national lead into the teens, Indiana could be competitive.

Texas (+13.8): Democrats have long talked about turning Texas blue � or at least purple � but the truth is they haven�t come anywhere close. Obama lost Texas by 12 points in 2008 despite his near-landslide margin nationally, for instance. But Clinton has a number of factors that could work in her favor. We estimate that about somewhere between 37 and 40 percent of Texas�s electorate will be Hispanic, black, Asian-American or Native American, depending on turnout. A high proportion of its white population has college degrees. And Trump has run afoul of locally popular politicians, such as Ted Cruz and George W. Bush. Previous polls of Texas had shown Trump with only a mid-single digit lead there, although a more recent survey had him up by 11.

Montana (+14.1): Obama also nearly won Montana in 2008, losing by just 2 percentage points. But Montana is historically an anti-establishment state, and Trump led Clinton in the only poll we can find � which, granted, was way back in November 2015 � by 21 percentage points. A winning scenario for Clinton would probably involve Libertarian Gary Johnson getting a substantial portion of the vote: Montana was Johnson�s second-best state, after New Mexico, in 2012.

Utah (+14.2): People are fascinated by Clinton�s prospects of winning in Utah, which went for Romney by 48 points in 2012. But it�s hard to say just how realistic those are. The polls-only model has Clinton just a couple of percentage points behind in the polling average in Utah, but its demographic model projects her to lose it by 16 points � a lot better than 2012, but not particularly close. As with Mississippi, therefore, the odds you assign to Clinton in Utah are highly sensitive to your choice of assumptions. She�s taking her chances seriously enough to make some efforts to campaign there, but is it a wild goose chase � like when Dick Cheney visited Hawaii in 2004 � or part of long-term plan to swing Mormons into the Democratic Party?

South Dakota (+14.9): Less excitingly, Clinton could win South Dakota in the event of a national rout, as the state seems to have become the slightly bluer of the two Dakotas after North Dakota�s oil boom. Perhaps South Dakota has a soft spot for Clinton, having voted for her in the Democratic primary in both 2008 and 2016, when Obama and Bernie Sanders won almost all the surrounding states.

Kansas (+15.6): Polls have had Kansas surprisingly close � with one survey in June even having Clinton ahead. One can squint and make an argument for it: Kansas is relatively well-educated, and Republican Gov. Sam Brownback is extremely unpopular. But note that Kansas polls badly overstated Republicans� problems in 2014, when both Brownback and Sen. Pat Roberts won re-election.

Alaska (+15.7): I doubt that Alaskans have much affection for Clinton, but the state is idiosyncratic enough that I don�t really know what they think of Trump, who lost to Cruz in the state�s Republican caucuses. As in Montana, a Clinton win would probably depend on Johnson sucking up a lot of Trump�s vote. Clinton trailed by just 5 percentage points in the only poll of Alaska in January, which didn�t include Johnson as an option.

Nebraska�s 1st Congressional District (+15.8): As goes Omaha, so goes Lincoln? Here�s what the map might look like if Clinton won by 16 percentage points nationally, along with all the states we�ve mentioned so far:

That would work out to 471 electoral votes, to 67 for Trump, which would be fairly typical for a win of that magnitude. Dwight D. Eisenhower won 457 electoral votes when beating Adlai Stevenson by 15 points in 1956, for example. And Franklin D. Roosevelt won 472 electoral votes in 1932, in an 18-point win against Herbert Hoover. Clinton would be a ways short of Ronald Reagan�s 525 electoral votes in 1984, however.

All right, let�s stop there. I�m trying to encourage you to keep an open mind. The way the polls-only model thinks about things, Clinton is ahead by 7 or 8 percentage points now, and the error in the forecast is symmetrical, meaning that she�s as likely to win by 14 or 16 points as she is to lose the popular vote to Trump. There have even been a couple of national polls that showed Clinton with a lead in the mid-teens. But my powers of imagination are limited. Other than losing North Dakota to go along with South Dakota, or perhaps the statewide electoral votes in Nebraska to go along with the congressional district ones, it�s hard for me to envision Trump doing any worse than this � unless he really does shoot someone on 5th Avenue.

# ? Aug 12, 2016 20:44

Crabtree: Oct 17, 2012; ARRRGH! Get that wallet out!
Everybody: Lowtax in a Pickle!
Pickle! Pickle! Pickle! Pickle!; Dinosaur Gum

Luigi Thirty posted:

https://twitter.com/alivitali/status/764173187886223360

Is it possible for Trump's black support to go negative?

Do you mean be so racist that even the KKK shakes it head and goes, "uh, tone it down" or just general moderate flight from the Repubs?

# ? Aug 12, 2016 20:47

Sir Tonk: Apr 18, 2006; Young Orc

axeil posted:

Nate Silver writes up all our Clinton fan fiction with numbers attached to it:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/what-a-clinton-landslide-would-look-like/?ex_cid=538fb

Now I know which states should be destroyed first, if ever given that capability.

# ? Aug 12, 2016 20:59

PhazonLink: Jul 17, 2010

Teddybear posted:

He could go legit. New dispensaries need some knowledgeable people.

Doubtful. There's a few articles and public radio pieces about black people getting hosed out of the legal marijuana business.

A whitewashing of the green gold rush is you will.

# ? Aug 12, 2016 21:01

ComradeCosmobot: Dec 4, 2004; USPOL July

Gallup finds that Trump supporters aren't disproportionately affected by trade or immigration and are not disproportionately poor or unemployed compared to non-Trump supporters.

I guess we'll never know what drives their support for him! (they're racist)

# ? Aug 12, 2016 21:03

Le Saboteur: Dec 5, 2007; I hear you wish to ball, adventurer..

Trump surrogates still fighting the good fight. https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/764188155171991552

Le Saboteur fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Aug 12, 2016

# ? Aug 12, 2016 21:04

icantfindaname: Jul 1, 2008

Grundulum posted:

There appears to be a very very vocal part of the "progressive/left-leaning" population who believes that Hillary Clinton and the DNC cannot, axiomatically cannot, do anything good. Anything that Clinton says is either a lie to earn her votes (if they agree with it), or her true opinion that will be enacted as soon as she is in office (if they disagree). Among my friends list, these people went hard for Sanders and are now equally enthusiastic for Jill loving Stein.

I think Hillary and her people have made as many, or nearly as many, concessions as are actually possible for her to make, so people on the left who won't vote for her should be open that there's nothing she can actually do at this point to get their votes. On the other hand, there's a very very vocal part of the Hillary supporting camp that seemingly cannot deal with the idea that there are people further to the left than Hillary or the current Democratic Party, and think that Hillary has now been crowned Most Progressive you're axiomatically not allowed not to support her and fry their brains when confronted by people who don't

icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Aug 12, 2016

# ? Aug 12, 2016 21:07

Fitzy Fitz: May 14, 2005

TheBigAristotle posted:

This video would be pathetic if it weren't so disturbing. They equate Hillary reacting to some reporter and tripping on a plane doorway to mental deficiency. Also he cites the front page of the Drudge Report as a source, specifically the 49% supporting candidates releasing medical records (ignoring the larger percentage who want to see Trump's taxes)

Ben Carson joins him for commentary.

Fun fact: Sean Hannity dropped out of college to become a conservative radio host. He does, however, have an honorary degree from Jerry Falwell's Liberty University.

The irony of asking Sleepy Ben Carson if Clinton's brain is slowing down.

# ? Aug 12, 2016 21:11

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

Hannity is gonna get better and better as we go on.

https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/763933107972026370

# ? Aug 12, 2016 21:14

Doctor Butts: May 21, 2002

Can we weigh in on whether or not Hannity stopped beating his wife?

# ? Aug 12, 2016 21:15

Dexo: Aug 15, 2009; A city that was to live by night after the wilderness had passed. A city that was to forge out of steel and blood-red neon its own peculiar wilderness.

zoux posted:

Hannity is gonna get better and better as we go on.

https://twitter.com/seanhannity/status/763933107972026370

Who is he talking about?

# ? Aug 12, 2016 21:16

Teddybear: May 16, 2009; Look! A teddybear doll!
It's soooo cute!

Dexo posted:

Who is he talking about?

Hillary was assigned a case early in her legal career to defend a man accused of sexual assault on a minor.

# ? Aug 12, 2016 21:16

FactsAreUseless: Feb 16, 2011

Dexo posted:

Who is he talking about?

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

# ? Aug 12, 2016 21:17

Fangz: Jul 5, 2007; Oh I see! This must be the Bad Opinion Zone!

Dexo posted:

Who is he talking about?

Trump?

# ? Aug 12, 2016 21:17

zoux: Apr 28, 2006

https://twitter.com/JanieFierce/status/764105372021956608

Hahaha

# ? Aug 12, 2016 21:17

theflyingorc: Jun 28, 2008; ANY GOOD OPINIONS THIS POSTER CLAIMS TO HAVE ARE JUST PROOF THAT BULLYING WORKS; Young Orc

Dexo posted:

Who is he talking about?

A case Clinton took in the 1970s that she was assigned to as a public defender.

The full story:

Accusation: Clinton took the case
Response: Clinton was assigned the case, public defenders are supposed to defend guilty people, it's what they do. Clinton also literally tried to NOT take the case, but they told her she had to

Accusation: She accused the girl in the case of making things up
Response: Distasteful, but basically her job as public defender

Accusation: She laughed about knowing her client was guilty
Response: No, she laughed at her own folly for believing polygraphs were reliable, when she watched her client lie during one and come back clean

# ? Aug 12, 2016 21:18

SpiderHyphenMan: Apr 1, 2010; by Fluffdaddy

Dexo posted:

Who is he talking about?

Hillary Clinton defended an accused rapist in court because she was an attorney and unlike TV and movies where Good Lawyers defend Good People and Bad Lawyers defend Bad People, everyone is entitled to an attorney who is doing their best to defend them.

# ? Aug 12, 2016 21:19

Star Man: Jun 1, 2008; There's a star maaaaaan
Over the rainbow

Sir Tonk posted:

Now I know which states should be destroyed first, if ever given that capability.

In 2006, Barbara Cubin (R) won her reelection in Wyoming by just under 1,000 votes. I don't know what magic the DNC pulled off in 2006 was, but I still dream of it finally working in a state that blood red.

# ? Aug 12, 2016 21:22

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 14:19

Yinlock: Oct 22, 2008

icantfindaname posted:

I think Hillary and her people have made as many, or nearly as many, concessions as are actually possible for her to make, so people on the left who won't vote for her should be open that there's nothing she can actually do at this point to get their votes. On the other hand, there's a very very vocal part of the Hillary supporting camp that seemingly cannot deal with the idea that there are people further to the left than Hillary or the current Democratic Party, and think that Hillary has now been crowned Most Progressive you're axiomatically not allowed not to support her and fry their brains when confronted by people who don't

I don't have a problem with that, I do have a problem with completely insufferable shitlords who are willing to throw away all the progress that has been made because it's Not Left Enough and also Hillary Bad.

# ? Aug 12, 2016 21:23

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL August: Quoth The Donald, "Arzy more."

«‹›565 »