2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

RobertKK

oscarBravo wrote: »

So your vote is for the candidate who'll roll over and give Putin whatever he wants?

Should the US always get what they want?
Is replacing Assad with extremists from the FSA who say they will execute Christians a better option?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/06/russian-air-defence-missiles-would-respond-if-us-launches-air-st/

Russian forces could shoot down coalition jets if the United States launches airstrikes against pro-government forces in Syria, the Russian ministry of defence has said. American officials have reportedly discussed using limited airstrikes to force Bashar al-Assad’s government to halt its assault on Aleppo and return the negotiating table after a ceasefire collapsed last month.
In Moscow’s starkest warning yet against Western intervention in the war, Russia’s chief military spokesman said that any airstrikes on government-held territory in Syria would be considered a “clear threat” to Russian servicemen.

Supporting regime change in Syria has been a massive error by the west, as it has been in Libya. The dictators may not be nice people, but one would have to be deluded to think the alternatives are better.

Quin_Dub

Overheal wrote: »

Only if he makes some kind of genuine humanitarian effort, and expect it to be in a swing area.

I meant without him doing anything..

I was reading an article overnight talking about the electoral impact of the Hurricane.

Voter registration in Florida closes in just five days. According to Professor Dan Smith of the University of Florida, in the last five days of registration in 2012, 50,000 Florida voters signed up to vote. Many who might normally sign up to vote at the last minute are now following Florida Gov. Rick Scott’s order to flee the affected areas of the state, and they are not likely to register to vote on their way out or drop ballots in closed post offices or soon-to-be-flooded post office boxes. Hillary Clinton’s campaign has already called for voter registration deadlines to be extended, but the Republican governor has already turned down that request.

We can also learn much of what post-storm voting could look like from the response to Superstorm Sandy, which hit the Eastern Seaboard in 2012, and caused great damage in New York and New Jersey just before Election Day. According to a study by Professor Robert M. Stein of Rice University, Sandy had a number of negative effects on the election in the impacted regions. Turnout went down. Polling places were consolidated. Jurisdictions differed in how they treated displaced voters. There was confusion and chaos in some affected areas.

Perhaps most disturbingly, some New Jersey jurisdictions relaxed rules for voting on the fly, including allowing voting by fax and by email. These measures violated New Jersey law, and a Rutgers study found that they may even have led to some fraudulent voting.
Just imagine if any of this happens in Florida after Matthew. We already have Donald Trump telling voters that the election is rigged. Any attempt to try to accommodate, or fail to accommodate, voters will be second-guessed, challenged, and likely litigated.

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

That's just not going to happen. Putin isn't stupid.

We live in a world where stupid things happen, and if the US attack Assad forces intentionally, then that would be stupid given Russia are there supporting Assad.

Overheal

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I meant without him doing anything..

I was reading an article overnight talking about the electoral impact of the Hurricane.

If everything else in the model holds, and she were to lose florida through an upset, she still wins the election handily, just not in a landslide.

Quin_Dub

Overheal wrote: »

If everything else in the model holds, and she were to lose florida through an upset, she still wins the election handily, just not in a landslide.

True,

But if early ballots (or voter registrations) are lost/damaged in the weather or if adjustments are made to the process as they seem to have done in Jersey after Sandy and Trump still loses Florida what's that going to do for his continuing claims of Election fraud etc.?

cowboyBuilder

TheDoctor wrote: »

Look at the odds if the election was held today.

86.5% - 13.5%

This is why I don't trust the MSM ... such bull****, even if Hillary is the favourite no way it's that much

cowboyBuilder

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

This is why I don't trust the MSM ... such bull****, even if Hillary is the favourite no way it's that much

I think you're confusing Probability with polling.

Consistently getting 60% in an opinion poll doesn't mean you have a 60% chance of winning an election. The probability of winning is much higher, although it's difficult to put a precise figure on it, on account of the electoral college system.

Overheal

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

This is why I don't trust the MSM ... such bull****, even if Hillary is the favourite no way it's that much

Those aren't polls, that's the prediction model from 538, representing her odds of winning the election up/down.

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

Should the US always get what they want?

Maybe that should be Trump's core electoral message? Hey America, we've been trying for too long to get what we want. Why don't we give Putin what he wants for a change?

I'm sure that's a vote-winner.

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

We live in a world where stupid things happen, and if the US attack Assad forces intentionally, then that would be stupid given Russia are there supporting Assad.

Russia is barely able to fight a war in Syria against the Syrian rebels. What makes you think Russia would be able to fight a war against NATO and whoever else wanted to join in with just Assad backing him up? I know you're biased towards authoritarian dictators but even you should be able to see that Russia is incapable of fighting "world war 3".

Overheal

I think Bill O'Reilly might have lost the conservatives some voters in Chinatown.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/go-fck-yourself-the-daily-show-shreds-watters-over-chinatown-segment/

Overheal

Suryavarman wrote: »

Russia is barely able to fight a war in Syria against the Syrian rebels. What makes you think Russia would be able to fight a war against NATO and whoever else wanted to join in with just Assad backing him up? I know you're biased towards authoritarian dictators but even you should be able to see that Russia is incapable of fighting "world war 3".

They really don't want to either. Everything I've seen out of Russian culture suggests they're predominately interested in self defense. Even going so far as to considering their nuclear arsenal the "Nuclear Shield"

Trent Houseboat

cowboyBuilder wrote:

This is why I don't trust the MSM ... such bull****, even if Hillary is the favourite no way it's that much

Genuine question, if the results matched 538 would you start to trust them next time around? If not, why not?

Why is she not the favourite by that much?
Which data are you using to support this assertion?

Do we live in a world where 538 is mainstream media, or has mainstream media changed it's meaning to any source of information I don't agree with?

RobertKK

oscarBravo wrote: »

Maybe that should be Trump's core electoral message? Hey America, we've been trying for too long to get what we want. Why don't we give Putin what he wants for a change?

I'm sure that's a vote-winner.

Compromising is what gets things done, anything else builds resentment and builds up problems.

Billy86

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

This is why I don't trust the MSM ... such bull****, even if Hillary is the favourite no way it's that much

Would you have said the same before the 2008 or 2012 elections?

Because between those two, 538 have a 99% accuracy rating. As in they called 49 out of 50 states correctly the first time, and 50 out of 50 correctly the second time. And due to the EC system, getting the states correct means getting the entire outcome correct.

It's pretty hard to argue bias or 'bullsh*t' against a model that ridiculously accurate.

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

Compromising is what gets things done, anything else builds resentment and builds up problems.

Like 8 years of obstructing a rival party to the point you push through a bill and override their veto to spite them before realizing how foolish it was? Or just making 40 odd gestural motions in congress to have Obamacare 'destroyed'

RobertKK

Suryavarman wrote: »

Russia is barely able to fight a war in Syria against the Syrian rebels. What makes you think Russia would be able to fight a war against NATO and whoever else wanted to join in with just Assad backing him up? I know you're biased towards authoritarian dictators but even you should be able to see that Russia is incapable of fighting "world war 3".

The US is still fighting a war in Afghanistan and Iraq that started a long time before the Syrian war ever started.

I am biased against the mess that removing Gaddafi brought, removing Saddam Hussein brought, the attempted removal of Assad has brought.
None of this has been like 1989 in Eastern Europe which was peaceful in most cases.
The devil you don't know is not always better than the devil you know.

I don't think a world war will start, but then history showed the first war started with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand, and there was no need for that brutal war, which led to the WW2.
Stupid things can lead to stupid wars.

Billy86

Overheal wrote: »

I think Bill O'Reilly might have lost the conservatives some voters in Chinatown.

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/go-fck-yourself-the-daily-show-shreds-watters-over-chinatown-segment/

For anyone else getting "not available in your country..."

RobertKK

Overheal wrote: »

Like 8 years of obstructing a rival party to the point you push through a bill and override their veto to spite them before realizing how foolish it was? Or just making 40 odd gestural motions in congress to have Obamacare 'destroyed'

The Democrats controlled Congress for two years of the Obama administration.

Obamacare is in trouble due to costs rising steeply.

BorneTobyWilde

Funny how Trump never actually answers the questions he is asked. He will randomly waffle on about something entirely different but vaguely connected to subject.
He does this all the time. Every question in last nights town hall debate was like this. He won't get away with that in next presidential debate.
Girl asked about not being able to get a job in field she is qualified for and what he would do to improve this for 1000's in same position, and he waffles on about trade deals with China.

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

The Democrats controlled Congress for two years of the Obama administration.

Obamacare is in trouble due to costs rising steeply.

Yes, and much like the GOP they all don't vote in a bloc in all matters.

But this was a party that vowed to obstruct the President as much as humanly possible, that used Veterans and First Responder health bills as bargaining chips in the legislature and the GOP controlled congress that has a piss poor approval rating, that cries about spending but continues to raise the debt ceiling and neither faction reigns it in. Just a bunch of millionaires in congress who pay little to no taxes spending other people's money.

Tell me there haven't been times when you've wanted to punch Mitch McConnel in the face.

K-9

marienbad wrote: »

That is not really that different from anywhere else though , look at Ireland , Fianna Fail would be back in power if there was an election right now and FG back to their solid core vote . Not very different in the UK with the Cons and Labour parties .

Only half the electorate vote for the big 2 now, was 85/90% in the 80's.

Overheal

thats kinda the same story in the US, reflected by eligible voter turnout rates.

RobertKK

Overheal wrote: »

Yes, and much like the GOP they all don't vote in a bloc in all matters.

But this was a party that vowed to obstruct the President as much as humanly possible, that used Veterans and First Responder health bills as bargaining chips in the legislature and the GOP controlled congress that has a piss poor approval rating, that cries about spending but continues to raise the debt ceiling and neither faction reigns it in. Just a bunch of millionaires in congress who pay little to no taxes spending other people's money.

Tell me there haven't been times when you've wanted to punch Mitch McConnel in the face.

My preference would be for Harry Reid, and I couldn't punch Elizabeth Warren, but wouldn't mind if she got laryngitis as she has a sharp voice and comes across angry.

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

she has a sharp voice and comes across angry.

Seems a bit sexist but anyway, she has reason to be angry look what she has to deal with. I'd vote for her in 2020.

K-9

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

This is why I don't trust the MSM ... such bull****, even if Hillary is the favourite no way it's that much

His model probably gives big weight to the swing states.

K-9

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Funny how Trump never actually answers the questions he is asked. He will randomly waffle on about something entirely different but vaguely connected to subject.
He does this all the time. Every question in last nights town hall debate was like this. He won't get away with that in next presidential debate.
Girl asked about not being able to get a job in field she is qualified for and what he would do to improve this for 1000's in same position, and he waffles on about trade deals with China.

I'm not sure how the town hall debates work. If he is answering a question he might be able to veer off topic a bit.

BorneTobyWilde

Goes off topic a lot.
Needs to engage on a personal level with person asking question. I'm sure on Sunday we will hear Anderson say on more than one occasion '' that's not answering the actual question'' and having to repeat question again to him.

RobertKK

Overheal wrote: »

Seems a bit sexist but anyway, she has reason to be angry look what she has to deal with. I'd vote for her in 2020.

Tim Kaine suffered with being an attack dog too, the problem with attack dogs is they come across badly.

Overheal

She has impressive pull among millenials however. More of whom will be likely to vote in a 2020 election. That said if Hillary is in office the odds of her challenging her 2nd term are null.

marienbad

K-9 wrote: »

Only half the electorate vote for the big 2 now, was 85/90% in the 80's.

Wait until after the next election though . I am astonished how quickly we forget.

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

Since the debate the FiveThirtyEight model has changed from 2:1 Hillary (66.67%) to 4:1 Hillary (79.3%).

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

This post is one of those "Make sure you have your high boots on to wade through all the boring analysis stuff." Overheal might enjoy this discussion, especially if he had a tall coffee with me before chatting about this. Swannie WAVES "hi" at Overheal. Are you ready for the 4 or 5 rated hurricane that's coming your way on the east coast? Oh... back on task.

FiveThirtyEight has been an interesting analysis group to watch and listen to, especially their discussions on poll-driven vs fundamentals-driven models to estimate election outcomes. They closely called the 2008 and 2012 election outcomes in advance, but they see this presidential election year cycle different. They admitted being more qualitative and subjective than quantitative early in this election cycle, acting more like political pundits than analysts during the primaries, and making bad calls. They have acknowledged their qualitative-subjective early errors, and have returned to the quantitative/statistical estimation models where they called elections outcomes well in the past. Of course, they have more quantitative data to analyze now than early 2016.

Although they will show both their poll-driven model, and their fundamentals-driven model at the same time, the simple poll-driven model they prefer for this more volatile 2016 presidential election. They admit that the closer they get to 8 November 2016, the better the poll-driven simple model may estimate outcomes, and Clinton remains in the lead. Methinks this was an elaboration of the obvious, and we didn't need them to tell us.

Using either their poll-driven or fundamentals-driven statistical models, if Trump does not completely reverse and pass Clinton's obvious lead across most national and critical state polls by one week before 8 November 2016 (1 November), Clinton wins. This factors in historic statistical tracking, trending, and momentum analyses, as well as more populous states with larger ECs to contribute to 270 than small ones, plus many states have already begun absentee voting, and such voting state-by-state has increased during presidential elections over the years. For example, and for all practical purposes, Oregon and Colorado may have been decided before 8 November 2016, but cannot release the results until election day arrives. So Trump roughly has 3 weeks to dramatically reverse many critical state and national polls to his favour if the FiveThirtyEight models continue to estimate election outcomes as they have in past presidential elections.

Although very cautious in their podcast of 3 October 2016, they now suggest that if Trump performs in this Sunday's (9 October Stateside) 2nd presidential debate as badly as he did in the 1st debate, game over for Trump. They discount instant polls that occur within hours of debates, as well as "click-polls" that were unscientific in sampling, especially when such "click-polls" allow the same person to click several times for the same candidate confounding results like voting 10 times by yourself for one candidate in entertainment shows like America's Got Talent, The Voice, etc. Trump showed leads in some unscientific "click-polls" after the first debate, but generally in most national and critical state polls (that do a better job sampling) occurring one-week or more after the 1st debate he was behind Clinton by 3 to 4 points.

The only polling organisation mentioned by FiveThirtyEight is the newly created LA Times/USC poll that has recently shown Trump winning the election in recent months. This poll uses a different sampling method and weighted analytic model, and because it's new, they were uncertain as to its merit with no history of estimating past presidential elections. It will be interesting if the LA Times/USC model estimates this election better or worse than all the others. I'm USC alumni (Fight On Trojans!), and know that USC tends to be very Republican in orientation for more than a century, but they can be very scientific when needs be, so who knows if their polls respect the scientific method or may be biased in modeling or sampling fundamentals favouring Republicans? I guess we will see 8 November 2016 (or a couple days after, if Trump continues to claim the election was "fixed," remaining silent about this if he wins, but crying "Yugly" if he loses).

Once again, caution should be exercised when considering both national and state polling, no matter whom conducts them, as polling was essentially descriptive and not inferential, and polls were conceptually and methodologically different than ECs (e.g., like apples and oranges: both fruit, but different).

gosplan

Wow.

Making moves on married women

'Grab them by the pussy'

That's it! Game over at this stage.

Just left to be seen how much of the Republican Party he brings down with him.

One things for sure though. The greatest thing that ever happened HRC is Trump.

Amerika

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Funny how Trump never actually answers the questions he is asked. He will randomly waffle on about something entirely different but vaguely connected to subject.
He does this all the time. Every question in last nights town hall debate was like this. He won't get away with that in next presidential debate.
Girl asked about not being able to get a job in field she is qualified for and what he would do to improve this for 1000's in same position, and he waffles on about trade deals with China.

If you take notice Hillary does the same thing. She answers questions with things that have nothing to do with the question, or answers questions only in generalities... with no specifics.

Pro Hoc Vice

Amerika wrote: »

If you take notice Hillary does the same thing. She answers questions with things that have nothing to do with the question, or answers questions only in generalities... with no specifics.

So what's your view on this https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html

Billy86

Now what was that the Trump fans were saying about how he should try to vilify Clinton over rumours about her husband?

Full audio of him bragging about sexually assaulting women here, on top of his multiple rape cases.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html

K-9

He has to win the debate on Sunday now or that video will leave him too far behind imo.

ECO_Mental

Billy86 wrote: »

Now what was that the Trump fans were saying about how he should try to vilify Clinton over rumours about her husband?

Full audio of him bragging about sexually assaulting women here, on top of his multiple rape cases.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-recorded-having-extremely-lewd-conversation-about-women-in-2005/2016/10/07/3b9ce776-8cb4-11e6-bf8a-3d26847eeed4_story.html

Wow.........he is done. He realy is a pig of a man

ECO_Mental

K-9 wrote: »

He has to win the debate on Sunday now or that video will leave him too far behind imo.

I think he has to do bit more than just win the debate!!! Hillary might have to come out on sunday night and say the she is a card carrying member of ISIS and she going to forceably take everbodies guns off them when she is POTUS then MAYBE trump might have a chance

RobertKK

ECO_Mental wrote: »

Wow.........he is done. He realy is a pig of a man

He should be done, but then people elected Bill Clinton who was no angel.

ECO_Mental

Watching CNN and this is serious for Trump, the debate could be called off even. I think this is the straw

TheDoctor

October surprise?

More like October nuclear bomb.

This election is done.

BorneTobyWilde

Might be gone before debate. That tape might be end of him.
Paul Ryan was suppose to be with him tomorrow, a show of strength . Paul Ryan will not stand beside him now, he is a tough cookies to crack.
Can see Pence taking over now, is that how it works at this stage too? That if Trump stepped down as president Pence takes over, but is that what happens at this stage too ?
Can Pence take over now if Trump goes ?

BorneTobyWilde

Clinton has a army of people digging the dirt on Trump. She is encouraging controversies to be uncovered . Clinton is the fraud and no dirt is coming to light. Clinton is a puppet, just look at her bank balance. She's so protected.

TheDoctor

Ted Cruz time to shine!

aloyisious

It's my opinion Don didn't realise what he was getting into when he went for the nomination but he's woken up since. He didn't guess he'd succeed. He's what we call here a chancer. US Republicans at grass-roots levels seem to think he's a break from usual and worth following. He's a businessman, different style to Bushes etc, but still after the pot of gold and probably think's of the White House as Mecca, the ultimate in gains "I'm on top of the world". They'll wake up after he begin's ****ing them over and probably not til then. The Bushes know him for what he is, a renegade "off the reservation" version of themselves and fear him and the damage he'll do to the US industry, their heartland.

Overheal

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Clinton has a army of people digging the dirt on Trump. She is encouraging controversies to be uncovered . Clinton is the fraud and no dirt is coming to light. Clinton is a puppet, just look at her bank balance. She's so protected.

That's the dirty side of politics. Everyone's history is on the playing board. The electorate has a right to know what the likely most public figure on the planet really is.

BorneTobyWilde

Overheal wrote: »

That's the dirty side of politics. Everyone's history is on the playing board. The electorate has a right to know what the likely most public figure on the planet really is.

Yea and the '' true Trump '' holds back and refuses to sink to her level, maybe the gloves are off now finally . Maybe he'll come out swinging now .

KingBrian2

Overheal wrote: »

That's the dirty side of politics. Everyone's history is on the playing board. The electorate has a right to know what the likely most public figure on the planet really is.

Not if it requires stalking them and going through their trash. That is not journalism.

Both parties are doing and Clinton is doing it to Trump.

BorneTobyWilde

TheDoctor wrote: »

Ted Cruz time to shine!

How does it work if Trump pulled out ? Pence takes over? Or Cruz ?