|
1337JiveTurkey posted:Supplemental media for the note in the OP about Chinamen. Oh dear. I think you meant to say "Celestials." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElAcu-1dlPM
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 08:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Is this for real? Yes, but it's important to remember that Trump's real contribution to the novel was probably notes and storylines. He didn't actually write the thing. But all the horrible poo poo probably came from him as orders barked over the phone to the author. Trump being able to write an actual novel with words and pages would be way more shocking.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 08:34
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:To be completely honest, the real fun timeline is as follows: The Speaker doesn't need to be a Member of the House. I wonder if Donny would be interested in the job. (All hate mail regarding this idea can be sent to Jon Lovett.)
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
It's still loving incredible that we're seeing Trump turn in poll performances at less than 40 while Clinton is also at barely 50. That means there's an unusually huge swath of undecideds this late in the game. Either they're all Ken Bones and the nation will get boned, or - more likely - most of them won't even vote. The post-mortem on the polling is going to be absolutely fascinating.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 10:53
|
|
|
Geostomp posted:It's idiots, people intimidated by others, and the handful of Republicans that still have too much integrity to go Trump even for the Supreme court, imo. I think there might be a big polling miss bubbling under in that all the while everyone has been laser focused on the infamous Trump Voter, you have even more Clinton voters and it might be that it's Clinton voters that the polls are missing. It swings both ways. You just can't write a good thinkpiece on Clinton voters because Clinton voters are diverse ordinary people while the Trump bloc is far more homogenic.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 11:24
|
|
|
Queering Wheel posted:He just wants clicks. Trump is not going to win. It doesn't matter that Clinton's underperforming Obama when she's only underperforming him by fractions of a percent in most of those. She's still winning by multiple percentage points. The only thing to arzy over is the Senate, and even there I'm confident that dems will get at least 50 seats + Kaine tiebreaker. "A strong national polling doesn't necessarily translate into an EC win" is the main takeaway here and it means people shouldn't rest on their laurels. Also the EC is dumb and bad but I guess we won't get rid of it until it starts hurting the GOP somehow (even though EC math generally favours the Dem, the GOP would have absolutely no hope of winning a popular vote election because you'd have incredible Democratic GOTV in all major urban areas throughout the country and it would make vote suppression way less effective).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 11:40
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:The ABC tracking poll is now at Trump +1, but you know - tracking poll. This is one post-mortem I really want to see. How the gently caress does your tracking poll go from +12 to -1 in a week? Did they sample multiple 19-year old high-income black men from Chicago?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 12:13
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Because their likely voter screen appears to be too reactive. That also explains why it's Trump's number that keeps fluctuating, not Clinton's. I would expect Trump voter intent to be more in flux. Again, even in the context of this poll, it's not that Clinton is going up or down, it's that Trump's numbers keep going all over the place from high 30s to mid 40s. This is in basically every poll right now. He's bumping into his ceiling again in the final stretch. If you look at the average, it's not a Clinton collapse like September, but a Trump rally.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 12:15
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:ABC/WaPo poll in 2012: That was a legit close election without a lot of undecideds though!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 12:43
|
|
|
Cimber posted:Anyone else think this red october surprise is a lot of nothing? I doubt anything will come out of it either. It seems like sex stuff is the only thing with any bite in depressing R enthusiasm. I think what we're seeing is a gazillion news stories coming out, that have been in the works for a while (maybe as soon as Trump secured the nomination) that need to get kicked out the door while they have any relevancy left. Odds are most of them will be anti-Trump. Edit: Ryan on record voting Trump: https://twitter.com/WaPoSean/status/793433234675798016 If there is a God, please let the video from that interview be played many many times over the next 20 years. Sulphagnist fucked around with this message at 13:45 on Nov 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:A torrent of anti-Trump stories would be precisely what would help, mind. We want every R who waited for Tuesday to be like 'Oh man, can I really go for this guy'. Yeah, but the EMAILS! thing sucked oxygen out for a while, we'll see how it shakes out. Maybe some in the media take a long hard look at themselves and wonder whether EMAILS! was really worth six columns on the front page of the NYT ten days before the election.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Four years from now no one will remember having voted for Trump. https://twitter.com/foxandfriends/status/793435312449990656 RYAN: "Yes, that was in 2012 obviously, I voted for elder statesman Mitt Romney."
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
Tom Guycot posted:Don't forget the increase in voter disenfranchisement thats gone on since 2012. Yes, it's this. Now that early voting in NC has been expanded to its regular levels, the AA vote is catching up. It might be slightly lower than 2012, but it'll be made up by the increase in Hispanic vote.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 14:58
|
|
|
canepazzo posted:Shock endorsement! Remember when people, myself included, were worried he might Smiler himself into the nomination? Good, simpler times.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
El Pollo Blanco posted:As a casual outside observer of US presidential elections since 2000, I get the feeling that Sanders' tax policy would probably cause a majority of Americans to freak the gently caress out and vote for anyone else on the ballot including inanimate objects. Look, Inanimate Carbon Rod has a really solid record on the economy and it's never sexually assaulted anyone. Cingulate posted:Michelle Obama. A person who hates a job isn't going to be very good at it.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 15:26
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:I wasn't being serious. I like her from what little I've heard about/from her, but clearly not enough to assess her for the completely unlikely possibility of her going for the presidency. I didn't mean to go off or anything, I get that she's cool and people love her (I do!) and sometimes it's hard to tell whether someone's being genuine or not. The aspects of her that make her likeable are also what would probably make her a terrible politician.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
There is no tape in the Clinton vault. We'd have seen it by now.canepazzo posted:Unreported in that earlier advertising blitz from Camp Trump - they pulled ads from PA. Read it as you will. If your resources are limited like theirs are, you need to gamble for the map where you can win. My best guess, if we are to assume some kind of rational actor at work here (!), is that they have decided that the only way they win the election is if the polls have a particular kind of demographic miss that, if factored in all the swing states, means that PA is a tight win for Trump, which then means states that are not like PA are the ones that need flipping. It'd have to be something like "suburban whites and educated whites will not actually vote for Clinton", for PA to be the one they're pulling from. That'd imply pulling from CO, NH and VA as well, and pouring money into FL, NC, GA, AZ, NV instead. It'd imply a map like this where you still need to win Florida or run the table elsewhere to win. What I'm saying is, the same way Romney trying to play for PA in 2012 meant he was  , Trump pulling out from PA in 2016 means he's super . But if all the polls have you down, down down, you either concede the election immediately like Bob Dole or you unskew the polls enough to show a potentially winning map and then play the game as if that's the real map.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
HannibalBarca posted:Unless there's some chaser to all of last nights shots, the oppo dump of last night looked more like flailing than any sort of legitimate strategy. I think both candidates are oppo'd out at this point, Liz Mair's teeth-gnashing aside. Thread moves fast so I posted this earlier today, but it's essentially a bunch of investigative reporting coming to fruition and stories that have been incubating getting shoved out the door while readers still care. Most of them will be negative for Trump because he's loving Donald Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Night10194 posted:The only reason this doesn't reassure me quite as much as it would is that I can't honestly believe Trump has access to anything approaching accurate data or rational strategy. That is the one big caveat in my post. But consider how I summarized: Romney playing for PA meant he was desperate. What does Trump, doing far worse in polls than Romney four years ago, pulling out from PA mean? How can it possibly mean anything good for Trump? If any sane Republican strategist were calling shots and thinking beyond the top of the ticket, they would be dumping truckloads of money in PA to help Toomey. HannibalBarca posted:Maybe, but none of it is gonna be the "oppo" bomb that so many people have been hoping/saying exists. The Russia stuff fizzled out in, like, three hours last night; and if you believe in that FSB Sex Tape, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. And some oceanfront property in Arizona if you think any MSM outlet is gonna run with a story about Trump making a woman sign an NDA after forcing her to have an abortion. Right, sure, I was just trying to explain why it feels uncoordinated and muddled - because it is. It's just a bunch of outlets pressing Submit on their Trump stories. It's absolutely not an oppo bomb. There is no oppo bomb.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
We found the far more likely explanation: whoever wrote the release hosed up  https://twitter.com/KatyTurNBC/status/793483333128761344
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
Imagine the shitstorm if by pure happenstance the official FBI twitter tweeted about something - anything - related to Trump's myriad investigations one week before the election. He'd be reading Comey the Hatch Act from a teleprompter tonight.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Koyaanisgoatse posted:are you really employing the Trump-endorsed method of using rally sizes as a proxy for likelihood of victory Also endorsed by Walter Mondale in 1984! "We have bigger rallies" has been the rallying cry of the losing campaign for decades.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Why are we arzying again? She doesn't - but when it's coming amidst a swarm of other polls showing the race getting closer, people are sweating it. We've seen Ohio drift from other swing state polling but nothing indicates why NC should, suddenly. It's just an outlier though. At least complacency brought by a big lead won't be an issue next week! ImpAtom posted:The Clinton campaign (and plenty of other people) found plenty of dirty on Donald Trump. It just didn't stick. At this point Trump has been buried in dirt. There's just a stubborn 40-45% of the electorate that doesn't care.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Another thing that's not worth Arzying over: Clinton spending money in firewall states like CO. It's the last week of the campaign and they have a mountain of cash to burn through, why not spend some in the firewall states? It doesn't mean their internals show CO suddenly collapsing.Northjayhawk posted:Your right, I looked up the math on this. If Clinton is actually up in NC, say by +1 or +2, then the chances that a random representative sample from a well-designed poll with a MoE of like 3 or 4% (which is supposed to be 2 standard deviations), would come up with Trump +7 (about 4 sd) is extremely low, like a tenth of a percent. LV screens are probably really messy in this election. We'll find out next week. blue squares posted:Actually it's because a huge part of the country doesn't care about the immense amount of dirt on Donald Trump that's out there. If anything seeing Trump on the debate stage the first time had a much more devastating impact, ditto getting direct unfiltered coverage of Clinton during the DNC.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 1, 2016 21:25
|
|
|
Clinton ran against someone who wasn't a Real Republican so the results don't count. She didn't really "win." That's going to be story, delegitimizing the Democratic President as always. After today's polls I'm definitely way more worried about the Senate than the White House. Seeing Feingold lose to loving Ron Johnson would be incredibly sad.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 18:35
|
|
|
rscott posted:The democrats have a better chance of taking back the Senate than winning the presidency according to 538 right now You had me freaked out for a moment like that other poster, but - the scenario of a Trump WH and a Dem senate is completely pants-on-head. I realize the models don't talk to each other, I guess some of the outlier polls and generally weird results are throwing everything off.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Bhaal posted:I was wondering, what methods do people here use to go through the local election parts of their ballot? Ballotpedia might help you.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Black church in MS burned, I wonder if well-intentioned Republicans will donate to repair it?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 21:21
|
|
|
Covok posted:What are the chances Hillary doesn't run in 2020 and lets someone more favorable be the democratic nominee? Because, if she isn't running against Trump, she might have trouble, if we're going to be completely honest. Equal to her having some kind of health problem that makes her unable to campaign and/or hold office competently in 2020.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
ImpAtom posted:Sander's base is at best very similar to Clinton and you can make enthusiasm arguments but taking for granted that Sanders would have the exact same enthusiasm as Clinton is unjustified. He might have more support among millennials and less among older voters or done more poorly with black voters or a lot of other things that are plausible but unprovable because Bernie Sanders was not the candidate and we can only make assumptions. The Sanders base is less reliable to turn out and vote. This probably contributed to him getting less votes than Clinton in the primary, i.e. losing. Cingulate posted:This is "unskew the polls" level detachment from reality. Nate is doing 3 things right now: Also apparently the program he uses to plug the numbers in has a sanity check where if there's a sudden crazy swing it goes "Nate, are you really sure these are the new poll numbers?" 
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
No, you silly. The Cubs winning means Hillary finally got her hands on a genie's lamp. We now know two of her wishes.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 07:16
|
|
|
Chelb posted:yeah. Right. We don't actually know how those people voted, only that people with registration this and that early voted. There could be a large number of Republican ticket-splitters in the Florida early vote for all we know. Trying to draw trends based on party affiliation and previous cycles when your sample size of elections is tiny is just asking for trouble. Oh and the GOP keeps loving with the early voting rules.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:I will say about Nate Silver that I don't understand what the point of the "polls plus" model is. It's rarely radically different than Polls Only and it reacts REALLY weirdly. Polls plus includes economic indicators and (either because of the okayish economy or as an added feature) a stronger assumption that polls will revert towards the mean. Farther out from election day it's a little more conservative in giving strong predictions one way or the other; this close to the election it's essentially obsolete.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
Two words on NH: white people. NH's deal is educated suburbanish white people, and it looks like they have mysteriously forgotten all the heinous poo poo about Trump in the last fortnight and have talked themselves into supporting him over not voting/Johnsoning. If this happens in VA and CO too, that might be a worry.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 19:26
|
|
|
The tied CO poll has the race at 39-39 with Clinton having a six point edge among those who already voted, flipped for Trump.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 20:16
|
|
|
emdash posted:actually, specifically today, the RCP average has been stagnant My hope and belief is that once the weekend shakes out of the polling we're back to a clear four point race or better and something like Obama 12+NC is what we'll wind up with.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Doredrin posted:The Dow has been sliding for the past few days and VIX is increasing to Brexit levels. If the stock market tanks before election day I'm going to laugh so hard. So... gun companies are a sure bet, right? Either Trump wins and the white supremacists start tooling up for Rahowa, or Trump loses and the usual suspects flock to gun stores to buy their 197th rifle before Clinton takes them all away.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
DaveWoo posted:I guess today is Extremely Belated rear end-Covering Day: For further reference there's this thing called a "press conference" where reporters can ask "questions" and you get to speak and "elaborate" on "facts." Next time do that instead. Aerox posted:I'd like to preface this with the unrelated observation that Tiny Brontosaurus is one of the best posters in this thread and a god-damned saint for dealing with the amount of poo poo that gets casually thrown into the pit that is USPol. Not empty-quoting.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
Eugene V. Dabs posted:Oh wow, hadn't seen the voted/not voted splits for those polls. Why is the 39-39 the only thing that's gotten any play? Because if the pollster doesn't have enough faith in their LV model to use that, why bother polling in the first place? 39-39 is what their poll says the voting result is based on the day (which of course is prima facie nonsense because there's no way 22 percent of people spoil their ballots or go third party, but you get the point).
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
I'm going to move on to new hotness of post-Arzying, namely, worrying about how the GOP will break the country after they don't get their way. Republicans are now vowing Total War. And the consequences could be immense. quote:It’s important to understand that strong institutions are what separate strong democracies from weak ones. In a strong democracy, one party can’t come into power and just lock up its opponents. It can’t turn the country’s law enforcement agencies into a partisan tool to destroy the other party. It can’t say that the courts will function only at its pleasure. We have the world’s most stable system not just because there aren’t tanks in the streets on election day, but because we have institutions that are strong enough to restrain the venality of individual men and women. And now, Republicans are not even pretending that those institutions should be impartial and transcend partisanship. They’re saying, if we can use them to destroy our opponents, we will. Something is seriously breaking down. The Trump Apocalypse Might Not Come, But the Republican One Will quote:Filling the existing vacancy with a liberal justice would effectively turn the Roberts Court into the Kagan Court, which would begin issuing decisions that conservatives abhor almost immediately. But if conservatives perceive the president who appointed the decisive justice as illegitimate, they will reject the new Court’s rulings and pressure their state governments to annul them. The 19th century called and wants its political shitstorms and civil war back.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 21:22
|
|