2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Billy86

JPNelsforearm wrote: »

Why is the sport dominated by black players(goes unquestioned by you, thats fine), yet coaching dominated by white men(ugh, problematic). One is due to racism, the other is due to....could it be genetic aptitude....... But of course, you need rules to increase diversity at the expense of one race... which is not racist though, because leftism..

Things you couldn't make up! :pac: Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about here. I'll spell it out nice and simple for you.

American Football is a very stop-start sport, and the most popular in the US. Explosive speeds and incredible strength are extremely important in most positions. Black people tend to dominate these positions. Before the NFL Draft (read up a few posts for reference) they run the college athletes through tests like vertical jump, 40 yard dash, 'cone' drills, bench press, etc. to gauge their athleticism.

Of the top 10 40 speeds this year... all 10 have been by black athletes.
Of the top 10 20yd shuttles this year... 9 have been by black athletes.
Of the top 10 60 yard shuttles this year... all 10 have been by black athletes.
Of the top 15 bench presses this year... 9 have been by black athletes (six way tie for 10th).
Of the top 10 cone drills this year... 9 have been by black athletes.
Of the top 10 vertical jumps this year... 9 have been by black athletes.
Of the top 10 broad jumps this year... 9 have been by black athletes.

You'll note the only one not utterly dominated by black athletes is the bench press, which is seen as being most important for offensive linemen (the huge lads that stand in front of the quarterback before he throws the ball). Well guess what? That position is very evenly split - a look into it a few years back found 49% white, 45% black.

The only positions that white players dominate are kicker, punter and quarterback - all positions that do not have drills etc to quantify players in them and thus are more subjective in evaluations of. Of those in the same review, quarterbacks were 81% white, kickers were 97% white, and punters were 100% white. Funny, that...

Justify racism whatever way you want, thats what it boils down to, hey though, the left has the moral high ground so keep ****ing that chicken.

Forget the moral high ground and just scroll up to look at the facts. You won't though, which is why you're so wildly in support of someone who you do not even know the policies and stances of.

As I said before, legislating discrimination is fine so long as its not an Afrikaner doing the legislating. The left is the new right.

As I said before, you're evidently as clueless as could possible be on the matter, and I would suspect you are willingly so.

ancapailldorcha

Ok guys, let's get back on topic please. I would suggest that this line of discussion could be continued on the American Football forum.

Black Swan

Clinton vs Trump recent national polls:

Poll | Taken | Clinton | Trump
CNN/ORC | 11 Apr-1 May | 54 | 41
Rasmussen | 27-28 Apr | 39 | 41
IBD/TIPP | 22-28 Apr | 47 | 40
USA Today | 20-24 Apr | 50 | 39
GWU | 17-20 Apr | 46 | 43
Fox News | 11-13 Apr | 48 | 41
NBC/WSJ | 10-14 Apr | 50 | 39
CBS News | 8-12 Apr | 50 | 40



rump claims he leads in the polls, but in the most recent match-up national polls he only leads in 1-out-of-8 (Rasmussen) against Clinton.

Manic Moran

How does the electoral college break down, of more interest.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

How does the electoral college break down, of more interest.

Certainly there are speculations about how the EC's would fall today, but primary elections and caucuses for the 2 different parties by state during recent months does not explain or predict how 8 November 2016 will occur when those ECs will actually be allocated in state-by-state elections. Democratic and Republican primary delegates state-by-state do not precisely translate into ECs. Plus the way delegates are calculated by party and state are not uniformly standardized across the nation. Also, states like Maine allocate ECs proportionately by candidate, while California is winner-take-all. Additionally, historical presidential election red and blue EC win states (2000, 2004, 2008, 2012, etc.) may not be predictive given the unusual circumstances associated with Trump winning the 2016 Republican nomination. Of course, it's fun to speculate today about November. I also acknowledge that you MM are familiar with the EC, but many of our posters and viewers may not be.

Such maps are very misleading too if you only look at geographical territory or the total number of states by red or blue colours (and not ECs), when some states have proportionately more ECs than other states that have very few. For example, it takes 270 ECs to win the presidency, but the single state of California has 55 ECs, and 55/270 = 20% or 1/5 the votes needed to win. If we add the 11 states of WY (3), ND (3), SD (3), ID (4), NE (5), AK (6), KS (6), UT (6), NV (6), IA (6), and OK (7) we also reach 55 ECs, and looking at a geographical map of the US it looks like the 11 states if won would overwhelm California geographically, but only tie in ECs. Unfortunately for very rural farm small EC states like WY, ND, SD, ID, etc., the cows, horses, sheep, and chickens are not part of the calculation to determine ECs (then again, I've heard that California is the largest Ag state of the 50, and may be very competitive in live stock too). Furthermore, ECs determine the presidency, and not national popular vote; e.g., Gore had a half million more national popular votes than GW Bush in 2000, but Bush won in ECs. And lastly, how the ECs were allocated state-by-state before the presidential elections can be a bit complex, and I may have missed something.

Given cautions (and my poor humour), here's a 2016 Presidential Election Map (link) that's already coloured-in for most states in red or blue that's interactive, so you can speculate and play too.

A Primal Nut

Now that he has the republican nomination confirmed, Trump is already relaxing his right-wing views:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/08/politics/donald-trump-taxes-wealthy/

ancapailldorcha

A Primal Nut wrote: »

Now that he has the republican nomination confirmed, Trump is already relaxing his right-wing views:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/08/politics/donald-trump-taxes-wealthy/

Interesting. I wonder if he's being sincere or whether he realises that his policies will push centrists into the Hilary camp.

K-9

Listened to a good NPR podcast about the events last week. They reckon all things following the lines things normally go (demographics), Clinton getting 30% of the male vote will probably win it for her.

Why we're talking about male or female, educated or uneducated, hispanic etc. is pretty damning but there you are.

Trump winning the white male vote is all great in the primaries, but in an election Republicans usually win that anyway, so Trump has to broaden his appeal.

InTheTrees

K-9 wrote: »

Trump winning the white male vote is all great in the primaries, but in an election Republicans usually win that anyway, so Trump has to broaden his appeal.

Wait. Trump winning the male vote in the republican primaries is a very long way from trump winning the male vote in the presidential election.

K-9

InTheTrees wrote: »

Wait. Trump winning the male vote in the republican primaries is a very long way from trump winning the male vote in the presidential election.

Ah yeah. Still, they were just dealing with past election demographics.

Clinton has high unfavorable ratings amongst men, but that ignores Trump's is even higher among women.

So Clinton getting 30% of the male vote would probably be enough for her. Seems very achievable.

All very reductive, but there you are. I don't think Irish or UK politics is anywhere near this, N.I. worse but different reasons.

The Tories and Labour I suppose have their demographics, FG and FF too but a lot of that is going away.

LuckyLloyd

Black Swan wrote: »

Clinton vs Trump recent national polls:

Poll | Taken | Clinton | Trump
CNN/ORC | 11 Apr-1 May | 54 | 41
Rasmussen | 27-28 Apr | 39 | 41
IBD/TIPP | 22-28 Apr | 47 | 40
USA Today | 20-24 Apr | 50 | 39
GWU | 17-20 Apr | 46 | 43
Fox News | 11-13 Apr | 48 | 41
NBC/WSJ | 10-14 Apr | 50 | 39
CBS News | 8-12 Apr | 50 | 40



rump claims he leads in the polls, but in the most recent match-up national polls he only leads in 1-out-of-8 (Rasmussen) against Clinton.

Oh Rasmussen you old scamp :rolleyes:

banquo

On Trump's VP pick:

If I were Trump, the absolute last person I would choose is someone like Kasich who that, if I were impeached, would be a viable candidate to run in the following election. That's just inviting impeachment from those who hate him.

So someone like Newt who, like Bush / Cheney, reassures core party voters that there's someone there who knows what they're doing (but few actually want to be President.)

In a lot of ways, I think we're looking at a potential Palin/McCain style ticket.

Hillary chooses someone to get excited about, cause she really needs that. Her campaign is lacking some big, animating idea. And I think Trump could outflank her there.

Fr Tod Umptious

banquo wrote: »

On Trump's VP pick:

If I were Trump, the absolute last person I would choose is someone like Kasich who that, if I were impeached, would be a viable candidate to run in the following election. That's just inviting impeachment from those who hate him.

So someone like Newt who, like Bush / Cheney, reassures core party voters that there's someone there who knows what they're doing (but few actually want to be President.)

In a lot of ways, I think we're looking at a potential Palin/McCain style ticket.

Hillary chooses someone to get excited about, cause she really needs that. Her campaign is lacking some big, animating idea. And I think Trump could outflank her there.

Impeached for what exactly ?

There is more chance of Clinton having legal trouble than Trump you know.

Oh and both will be too d in 4 years to make them viable second term presidents.

Suryavarman

The Tax Policy Centre has brought out an analysis of Sanders' tax and spending policies:

Even after accounting for his $15.3 trillion in tax increases, the Tax Policy Center said, Sanders would still add $21 trillion to the debt over the next decade. That would amount to more than doubling the big deficits the government is already projected to run.

Garry Kasparov has also penned a damning indictment of Sanders:

The problem is with the proposed solutions. A society that relies too heavily on redistributing wealth eventually runs out of wealth to redistribute. The historical record is clear. It’s capitalism that brought billions of people out of poverty in the 20th century. It’s socialism that enslaved them and impoverished them. Of course Senator Sanders does not want to turn America into a totalitarian state like the one I grew up in. But it’s a valuable example of the inevitable failure of a state-run economy and distribution system. (Check in on Venezuela for a more recent example.) Once you give power to the government it is nearly impossible to get it back, and it will be used in ways you cannot expect.

Akrasia

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

Impeached for what exactly ?

There is more chance of Clinton having legal trouble than Trump you know.

Oh and both will be too d in 4 years to make them viable second term presidents.

You can get impeached for lying under oath. If the republicans wanted Trump out it would be pretty easy to get him for something. All they'd need to do is launch an investigation into something he did, ask him questions under oath, and then wait for him to Lie.

Trump is a pathological liar so it shouldn't take long.

LuckyLloyd

Akrasia wrote: »

You can get impeached for lying under oath. If the republicans wanted Trump out it would be pretty easy to get him for something. All they'd need to do is launch an investigation into something he did, ask him questions under oath, and then wait for him to Lie.

Trump is a pathological liar so it shouldn't take long.

Nonsense. Two Presidents in history have been impeached (Nixon would have been a third I guess) and the Senate acquitted both times, even when Clinton was clearly in the wrong.

The burden of proof is yuuuge.

InTheTrees

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

even when Clinton was clearly in the wrong.

No. He actually wasn't. Despite the republican witch hunt the effort failed.

LuckyLloyd

InTheTrees wrote: »

No. He actually wasn't. Despite the republican witch hunt the effort failed.

And then he released a statement admitting that, yes, he did have sexual relations with that woman. The point being, it's very difficult to win an impeachment proceeding

Akrasia

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And then he released a statement admitting that, yes, he did have sexual relations with that woman. The point being, it's very difficult to win an impeachment proceeding

The impeachment was a result of an investigation into real estate shenanigans by the Clintons (the whitewater scandal)
The impeachment was because Clinton lied under oath about what he got up to with Lewinski

In the end it failed but I imagine that if the Republican and the Democrat establishments and all wanted to get rid of Trump and install a more moderate VP to see them into a new election, they wouldn't have to work very hard to arrange it so that Trump incriminates himself in a way that is much easier to prove than a sexual encounter behind closed doors. They really just need a 2/3 majority of support in the house and the senate and a reasonable grounds for impeachment..

The grounds for Impeachment of a U.S. president are @reason, Bribery, and High Crimes and misdemeanors'
The third part of that does not just include illegal acts that need to be proven in a court of law, they can also include any act that is an abuse of power as decided by the congress and the senate.

If Trump, for example, overstepped his office and tried to ram through restrictions on the press without following the proper procedures, that could be grounds for impeachment, similarly, if he was reckless in international diplomacy and caused an unnecessary conflict or unnecessary loss of life, these could be grounds for impeachment. in practise it's usually very difficult to impeach a president, but that's because they usually have the support of their own party. if Trump somehow managed to get elected and then went off doing and saying crazy unpredictable stuff that damaged the republican party, his own party might support impeaching him

Clinton was an extremely talented politician who could charm his way out of any situation. Trump has a different set of skills but it remains to be seen if diplomacy and political manoeuvring are amongst them.

InTheTrees

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And then he released a statement admitting that, yes, he did have sexual relations with that woman. The point being, it's very difficult to win an impeachment proceeding

Having an affair is not "High Crimes and Misdemeanors".

Thats why the impeachment failed. It was a complete farce, very similar to the benghazi hearings. It was a multi year multi million dollar partisan witch hunt, contrived by a republican congress, that failed to come up with any meaningful charges and resorted to trying to unseat the president on the slender chance that lying about an affair was enough.

It was a joke.

InTheTrees

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And then he released a statement admitting that, yes, he did have sexual relations with that woman. The point being, it's very difficult to win an impeachment proceeding

Its not actually against the law to have an affair. Its also not against the law to lie about it either.

TheDoctor

Shock as Trump wins W. Virginia. Dems too early to call.

Amazingfun

TheDoctor wrote: »

Shock as Trump wins W. Virginia. Dems too early to call.

Hillary lost again


Anyways, NICE BIG WINS for Trump, hopefully shutting up the insufferable Cruz who today threatened to re-start his campaign if he won Nebraska.

Black Swan

Amazingfun wrote: »

Anyways, NICE BIG WINS for Trump, hopefully shutting up the insufferable Cruz who today threatened to re-start his campaign if he won Nebraska.

There is only one Republican candidate currently running and that's Trump, so Trump winning more states is moot.

Akrasia

15 point win for Bernie gets him 2/3 of the W Virginia delegates, but a bigger story from this might be the exit polls that suggest that a lot of the registered democrats would switch to Trump in the general election, especially if Clinton is the candidate.

Sanders is making the case to the super delegates that Clinton might actually lose to Trump, and that He is the better candidate in the General election.

Almost half of the Sanders voters in W Virginia exit polls said that they would vote for Trump over Hillary in the GE.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279430-nearly-half-of-sanders-voters-in-west-virginia-would-vote

Hillary has a problem if she is unpopular amongst independents and a significant percentage of her own party, and hugely unpopular amongst republican voters.

She is still the likely winner in a Trump V Clinton GE, but it's getting too close for comfort, and this is the argument Sanders is going to make at the convention.

Akrasia

The very latest polls are bad news for Hillary and great news for Trump

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/05/10/polls-show-tight-races-in-key-swing-states-warning-signs-for-hillary-clinton/

Clinton and Trump are polling neck and neck in the key swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida (all within the margin of error)

I'm genuinely concerned if the polls are like this now, what will happen when Trump tailors his rhetoric towards the independent voters for the GE.

Clinton is a magnet to controversy and scandal while Trump is made of greased Teflon

Amazingfun

Black Swan wrote: »

There is only one Republican candidate currently running and that's Trump, so Trump winning more states is moot.

No it's not, for if the cringey #NeverTrump had any traction, it would show in the numbers. Instead, we see Trump dominating soundly, which is fabulous

You seem to have missed the part where I informed you Cruz was threatening to re-enter the race if he did well in Nebraska. Rubio appeared to make a weak reference to such a move in an interview recently as well. Trump coming in strong puts those options in the "pathetic" category, hopefully for good.

Christy42

Akrasia wrote: »

15 point win for Bernie gets him 2/3 of the W Virginia delegates, but a bigger story from this might be the exit polls that suggest that a lot of the registered democrats would switch to Trump in the general election, especially if Clinton is the candidate.

Sanders is making the case to the super delegates that Clinton might actually lose to Trump, and that He is the better candidate in the General election.

Almost half of the Sanders voters in W Virginia exit polls said that they would vote for Trump over Hillary in the GE.

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/279430-nearly-half-of-sanders-voters-in-west-virginia-would-vote

Hillary has a problem if she is unpopular amongst independents and a significant percentage of her own party, and hugely unpopular amongst republican voters.

She is still the likely winner in a Trump V Clinton GE, but it's getting too close for comfort, and this is the argument Sanders is going to make at the convention.

West Virginia is a Republican state with demographics that suit Trump anyway (and Sanders since they draw from similar enough demographics).

It would be interesting to see if the trend keeps up though on its own it doesn't say much.

K-9

That would make Cruz look worse!

Was wondering if Sanders was tipped to win there anyway, but it must be worrying for Clinton that he's still winning states with the race over bar the shouting.

ancapailldorcha

K-9 wrote: »

That would make Cruz look worse!

Was wondering if Sanders was tipped to win there anyway, but it must be worrying for Clinton that he's still winning states with the race over bar the shouting.

Sanders is effectively out now though. Every state he fails to win just makes it more and more certain that Hilary will be the next president.