2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

K-9

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

That's because Trump may not get enough delegates to make him the GOP nomination, and you may have a contested convention where anything and everything may happen.

No such problem exists on the Dem. Side.

To an extent, it's also because the Democratic super delegates look sewn up. That isn't the case with the Republican pledged delegates. The Democratic establishment don't want Sanders whereas the Republican establishment doesn't want either of the 2 front runners.

Black Swan

eire4 wrote: »

Currently the RCP averages...

I would be very cautious about using "RCP averages" when attempting to describe this 2016 presidential race. There are serious problems combining and averaging the results of different polling organisations that have different methodologies, different time frames, different sampling methods, different sample sizes, different confidence levels, different confidence intervals, etc.

briany

Hillary came off as smug and conceited in that Democratic debate. Bernie came off as a bit doddery and lacking in concrete answers on some questions. Hillary gave some of her own questions the Slick Willy treatment. Still, Bernie's the only one in the whole race who seems any way normal and genuine. The fact that he's gotten as far as he has while being as left as he is is a minor miracle.

walshyn93

Black Swan wrote: »

I would be very cautious about using "RCP averages" when attempting to describe this 2016 presidential race. There are serious problems combining and averaging the results of different polling organisations that have different methodologies, different time frames, different sampling methods, different sample sizes, different confidence levels, different confidence intervals, etc.

You've said this before. "Serious problems" is a vague and casual dismissal, especially considering the RCP polls were about 90% accurate for the primaries. They only started to break down in reliability with smaller states where the major polling companies didn't go.

And as always, polls are to be interpreted, not necessarily believed.

As well as that, try making a prediction for a presidential campaign without the use of polls.

EDIT: I've just seen that you were responding to RCP polls for the presidential election and not the primaries. To be fair you have a point. Polling for a campaign that hasn't even started yet is quite pointless.

walshyn93

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

There is always a cognitive dissonance wrt to revisionism.... always to suit an agenda or a future fight.

However Barry did ok overall.... Though, reading that the very amenable & stalwart ally of Jordan may be considering a change to the Russian sphere would be an enormous blot on the Obama administration's copy book.

History will be more kind to him than he deserves but only because the history will be written by his fawning supporters in the media and academia.

There's an argument to be made that since he didn't do much he couldn't have done much wrong. But Romney wrote in his book about his foreign policy plan and it essentially involves picking a group of allies and defending them to the hilt for better or for worse. Obama has been too much of a relativist to do all that and it resulted in the disastrous pull out of Iraq and as you mention the Jordanians looking towards Russia.

The only ally he seems to have won over is Cuba, which history will view as largely irrelevant.

I just don't think Obama has much of an aptitude for foreign policy. I hope some of his staffers produce some books that give us an insight into his mindset.

I think Obama tried to be a post-Imperial president in an Imperial time, and that either makes him ahead of his time or tragically naive.

BoJack Horseman

walshyn93 wrote: »

I think Obama tried to be a post-Imperial president in an Imperial time, and that either makes him ahead of his time or tragically naive.

That's a very good line.

He spent 8 years, for good or ill, reducing the span of US hegemony.
I think you are right, part of him may have thought that a smaller, interconnected world was past the concept of hegemonys.

The other big players didn't see it that way though.
Once he and Clinton did their embarrassing 'reset/overcharge' stunt, Moscow knew that they had Obama's number
Meanwhile, China grew increasingly hostile towards all of it's neighbours, again, the White House sat on its hands.... and now all of the South China Sea is essentially Beijing's lake with their extensive hardware in place.

The next president needs to remember that there will always need to be a hegemony.... the alternative is worse.

walshyn93

Akrasia wrote: »

I think it was a case of if you're a Hillary supporter, you'll say she won, if you're a Bernie supporter, you'll say he won.

I thought a lot of Hillary's points were cheap shots and mischaracterisations

Sanders referred to Hillary's voting record on Iraq so in response, she talked about the NY Daily news hatchet job interview and the implication that he didn't know his own policies.

Again, she accused him of being a puppet of the NRA, she tried to imply that Sanders wasn't a strong supporter of reproductive rights by referring to his comment about the media sensationalising everything that Trump says

she tried to disarm Sanders by pretending that she shares his views on universal healthcare and free education and breaking up the banks

Watching the debate made me dislike Hillary more than I already did, but I'm not sure if it will swing many voters from Hillary to Bernie.

The more people start to like Bernie the more they will start to dislike Hillary. Even conservatives who dislike Bernie's policy have an aneurysm when Hillary spouts obvious lies about him.

Black Swan

walshyn93 wrote: »

You've said this before. "Serious problems" is a vague and casual dismissal, especially considering the RCP polls were about 90% accurate for the primaries. They only started to break down in reliability with smaller states where the major polling companies didn't go.

We are discussing the "RCP average," not the various polls listed by RCP. I would be curious where you got the "RCP polls were about 90% accurate for the primaries?" Any support you can cite (links), or did you make this percentage up?

Michigan Democratic Presidential Primary:
Source | Clinton | Sanders | Spread
RCP Average | 58.7 | 37.3 | Clinton +21.4
Actual Results | 48.3 | 49.8 | Sanders +1.5

Iowa Republican Caucus:
Source | Trump | Cruz | Spread
RCP Average | 28.6 | 23.9 | Trump +4.7
Actual Results | 24.3 | 27.6 | Cruz +3.3


Oklahoma Democratic Primary:
Source | Clinton | Sanders | Spread
RCP Average | 43.0 | 41.0 | Clinton +2.0
Actual Results | 41.5 | 51.9 | Sanders +10.4

Oklahoma Republican Primary:
Source | Trump | Cruz | Spread
RCP Average | 32.7 | 20.3 | Trump +11.4
Actual Results | 28.3 | 34.4 | Cruz +6.1

If you don't understand why there is a serious problem with the "RCP average" in these primary elections, whereupon they combine and average the results from different polling organisations of polls conducted during different time frames with different sample sizes, different poll confidence levels, and different poll confidence intervals, etc., it's really pointless to discuss these survey research problems further with you.

Not addressing the "RCP average," rather presidential polling in general, caution should be exercised with all polls. For example, "Gallup — predicted a narrow Romney victory" in 2012 GE, when Obama "easily won re-election, by 5 million votes and a 51.1 percent to 47.2 percent margin." More recently, polling evidenced an "epic fail in the Michigan Democratic primary, with the poll average predicting Hillary Clinton would crush Bernie Sanders by 21 points. When Sanders upset Clinton by 1.5 percent."

Magnate

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

Given the amount of money and time republicans have spent trying to get something pinned to Clinton I don't see them working with her, never mind her working with them.

Theory circulating online that they already have access to her Wall Street transcripts, possibly even recordings given that Cruz's wife is a Goldman Sachs investment manager. Supposedly they're waiting until closer to the general to release so they don't have to worry about Sanders.

If the transcripts came out now it'd be all over for Hillary, she may even drop out which would mean a tougher candidate for the republicans to face.

And for those doubting Bernie's ability to get anything done - As senator he was nicknamed the 'Amendment King' for just that, his ability to get things passed through a republican controlled congress and form bipartisan coalitions. See here for more.

eire4

Black Swan wrote: »

I would be very cautious about using "RCP averages" when attempting to describe this 2016 presidential race. There are serious problems combining and averaging the results of different polling organisations that have different methodologies, different time frames, different sampling methods, different sample sizes, different confidence levels, different confidence intervals, etc.

You have a point certainly. However in this case I was not trying to make any big point other then to show that a poster who suggested that Clinton was the only person on the Democratic side who can beat the Republicans head to head when most polls show that not only is that not correct but in fact it is Sanders who does best head to head in most polls against Republicans.

JPNelsforearm

Sanders isnt tougher for say, Trump to face, than a Hillary, America will not elect a communist, end of story, no matter what the polls say. Hillary is still the candidate to beat, most money, most demographics and a party machine behind her.

Billy86

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Sanders isnt tougher for say, Trump to face, than a Hillary, America will not elect a communist, end of story, no matter what the polls say. Hillary is still the candidate to beat, most money, most demographics and a party machine behind her.

Good thing Sanders isn't a communist, so! By European standards, he tends to range centre-left to centre-right. You don't seem too well informed on him.

K-9

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Sanders isnt tougher for say, Trump to face, than a Hillary, America will not elect a communist, end of story, no matter what the polls say. Hillary is still the candidate to beat, most money, most demographics and a party machine behind her.

Progressive Democrat vs. deep South evangelical Republican like Cruz, Democrats will stay with Sanders.

Progressive Democrat vs. Trump, worst nightmare for Trump because Sanders hoovers up the blue collar support Trump would target on the Democratic side.

Or in your terms, Communist vs. Racist or Bible thumping Republican!

Suryavarman

Billy86 wrote: »

Good thing Sanders isn't a communist, so! By European standards, he tends to range centre-left to centre-right. You don't seem too well informed on him.

There aren't too many people on the European centre-right calling for $15 an hour minimum wages, ending a wide range of free trade deals, taxing capital gains like regular income or increasing income taxes well above 50%. Sanders is far left even by European standards.

Black Swan

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Sanders isnt tougher for say, Trump to face, than a Hillary, America will not elect a communist, end of story, no matter what the polls say. Hillary is still the candidate to beat, most money, most demographics and a party machine behind her.

There isn't a "communist" currently running for the Democratic or Republican presidential nomination in 2016. Do you know what a "communist" is?

JPNelsforearm

Sure, Sanders proposes "democratic socialism", doesnt he. Forget all the connections to US based commies during the 70's and 80's, forget the Kibbutz in Israel, http://www.trevorloudon.com/2016/02/no-there-is-not-a-difference-between-democratic-socialism-and-socialism/

The stepping stone, or transitional program to full blown socialism and eventually communism, once the proles are sufficiently awoken to the nefarious bourgeoisie.....

"You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers" -Bernard Sanders

You shall love your Lada comrade, its the only car you need.


"Democratic left", "people before profit", whatever guise these people come in, its irrelevant, its communism at the end of the day, call it that.

Christy42

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Sure, Sanders proposes "democratic socialism", doesnt he. Forget all the connections to US based commies during the 70's and 80's, forget the Kibbutz in Israel, http://www.trevorloudon.com/2016/02/no-there-is-not-a-difference-between-democratic-socialism-and-socialism/

The stepping stone, or transitional program to full blown socialism and eventually communism, once the proles are sufficiently awoken to the nefarious bourgeoisie.....

"You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers" -Bernard Sanders

You shall love your Lada comrade, its the only car you need.


"Democratic left", "people before profit", whatever guise these people come in, its irrelevant, its communism at the end of the day, call it that.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Seriously communist is everything under the power of the state with one ruling party. $15 dollars an hour isn't communist nor right wing. It is $15 an hour, argue that on its own merits but suggesting it is communism is nonsensical.
Sanders isn't a communist, I don't agree with the man on everything but trying to tone down some of the excesses of capitalism doesn't make you a communist. Especially as there isn't one country on Earth that doesn't have controls on capitalism in some way or fashion.

K-9

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Sure, Sanders proposes "democratic socialism", doesnt he. Forget all the connections to US based commies during the 70's and 80's, forget the Kibbutz in Israel, http://www.trevorloudon.com/2016/02/no-there-is-not-a-difference-between-democratic-socialism-and-socialism/

The stepping stone, or transitional program to full blown socialism and eventually communism, once the proles are sufficiently awoken to the nefarious bourgeoisie.....

"You don't necessarily need a choice of 23 underarm spray deodorants or of 18 different pairs of sneakers" -Bernard Sanders

You shall love your Lada comrade, its the only car you need.


"Democratic left", "people before profit", whatever guise these people come in, its irrelevant, its communism at the end of the day, call it that.

Well I suppose Republican logic means outright racism must follow Reagen, Bush and The Tea Party so therefor a Socialist must mean Communism.

K-9

I'd forgotten Obama is a Socialist!

Black Swan

Christy42 wrote: »

Seriously communist is everything under the power of the state with one ruling party.

Although not Communist one-party control, per se, if Republican Trump wins the presidency, that means the Executive branch will be under Republican control. If the Republicans maintain majority control of both US Senate and US House, they will essentially control Congress, the 2nd branch of US government. If the Republicans continue their control of these 2 branches of US government long enough to fill vacancies in the US Supreme Court they will gain a Republican agenda majority (stacking the 3rd and remaining branch of the US government), which, for all practical purposes means one-party control of the 3 branches of US government. With 3 branch Republican control, there will be no checks-and-balances against "one ruling party" power, abuse, and corruption.

Black Swan

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Sanders proposes "democratic socialism", doesnt he... The stepping stone, or transitional program to full blown socialism and eventually communism...

This "stepping stone" metaphor was a major principle of McCarthyism in America, which was a fear-based Salem witch hunt perspective used to deprive many American citizens of their Constitutional rights during the late 1940's part of the Cold War.

Manach

Black Swan wrote: »

This "stepping stone" metaphor was a major principle of McCarthyism in America, which was a fear-based Salem witch hunt perspective used to deprive many American citizens of their Constitutional rights during the late 1940's part of the Cold War.

Which of course while being a left wing origin story ignores the real number of communist and their sympathisers within State at the time as well as the similar style purges that are currently ongoing against those who fail to hold proper progressive values within work or educational establishments.

BoJack Horseman

Yeah, there was a lot of Communists back in the day for whatever reason.

Nowadays anyone who considers communism a good idea is looked upon as mad.

WR Bernie, he's not communist.
I'm as far from communist as one can be, but I to express wonder at the need for so many ways & means of adding volume to eyelashes!

Akrasia

Manach wrote: »

Which of course while being a left wing origin story ignores the real number of communist and their sympathisers within State at the time as well as the similar style purges that are currently ongoing against those who fail to hold proper progressive values within work or educational establishments.

Communism failed, Socialism not only succeeded, but it's essential for a stable economy and a stable society.

Capitalism without any element of socialism would collapse.

Without socialised education, security, healthcare, environmental protection, scientific and medical research, social welfare, mental health services, public housing, public health initiatives, regulations on individual and corporate behaviour etc there would be so many imbalances in the economy both long term and short term that we would be constantly rushing from one crisis to another without any means of fixing them

Sanders wants to have strong public services, paid for by those who can most easily afford to pay for them. A strong, successful and stable economy is in the long term interest of the citizens of America, an under regulated capitalistic free for all is in nobody's interest other than the vultures who are best placed to exploit crises and vulnerability.

BoJack Horseman

Akrasia wrote: »

Communism failed, Socialism not only succeeded, but it's essential

What is the difference?
Communists have a habit of calling themselves socialists.

There are only a handful of socialist States on the earth, or at least trying to be.

It's far from growth industry.
Venezuela, Cuba & Zimbabwe et al don't give a good sales pitch.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states#Current_countries_with_constitutional_references_to_socialism

Black Swan

Manach wrote: »

Which of course while being a left wing origin story ignores the real number of communist and their sympathisers within State at the time as well as the similar style purges that are currently ongoing against those who fail to hold proper progressive values within work or educational establishments.

Later followed by the US "saving the world" from the communist plague in the 1960's and 70's, especially from today's US #1 Most Favored Nation Trading Partner the communist People's Republic of China, as well as waging the Vietnam War with today's US #15 top trading partner communist Vietnam. But not to worry, Trump is doing a grand job resurrecting and stirring up all the old hatreds and fears of immigrants in this nation of immigrants. (You cannot make this ironic contradictory stuff up. It reads like poor fiction. What a craic!)

Akrasia

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

What is the difference?
Communists have a habit of calling themselves socialists.

They also call themselves Democratic and Republics. They can call themselves anything they like, but North Korea is not democratic or a republic. Names are not important, it's the practical way countries are governed that counts.
Communists want to live in communes, or want everything owned by the state 'on behalf' of the citizens where in theory everything is owned by everyone (but in practise, 99% of people have no control over resources and a political elite make all the decisions)

Socialists want to live free individual lives where we have our own personal incomes and freedom to pursue our own desires, but we share (socialise) the costs of certain public goods and services.

Like it or not, unless you're a hermit living on a desert island, we live in an interdependent world, and our opportunities and standard of living is hugely affected by what other people do around us.

A social democracy is where the citizens of a state vote to set certain priorities for public services, and we are taxed accordingly to cover these costs.

There are only a handful of socialist States on the earth, or at least trying to be.

It's far from growth industry.
Venezuela, Cuba & Zimbabwe et al don't give a good sales pitch.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_socialist_states#Current_countries_with_constitutional_references_to_socialism

Social democracies are socialist and capitalist. And that covers pretty much all of Europe

whatawaster

Akrasia wrote: »

Social democracies are socialist and capitalist. And that covers pretty much all of Europe

And the United States

TheDoctor

The word "socialist" scares the right though so you see Fox and their like referring to "Bolshevik Bernie" which really is ignorance and pushing their own agenda.

BoJack Horseman

Akrasia wrote: »

Social democracies are socialist and capitalist. And that covers pretty much all of Europe

Except Ireland.

Nearly 100 years in & yet to elect a socialist government.

Why would we?
Most of us like owning stuff.