2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

AbusesToilets

20Cent wrote: »

Instead of being a wallflower in charge of decorating the White House and smiling for the cameras ambitious Hillary Clinton rolled up her sleves and got involved in policy making. Fair play to her.

Eh, no. If she wanted to be involved in policy making, she should have sought elected office or appointment to a relevant Department. You know, like everyone else does.

20Cent

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Eh, no. If she wanted to be involved in policy making, she should have sought elected office or appointment to a relevant Department. You know, like everyone else does.

Yeah, this seems to have made her so unpopular she went on to become a senator and next month President.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not exactly the same system of government

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

All the first ladies have worked on political issues it's nothing new.
Just the hatred towards HRC is so strong.

If she did nothing while first lady ye'd be using that against her now.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

B_Wayne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sabina Higgins has discussed the likes of abortion since Michael D Higgins became president. I fully support her right not to be sitting on a mantelpiece and keeping stum.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

They're about to elect her President so it must have worked.

Pro Hoc Vice

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm interested to the court ruling you mention "she won a court ruling stating that the First Lady was a de facto federal official, in order to give herself a powerful role in high policymaking." can you link to it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

B_Wayne wrote: »

Can you show a way in which she demonstrably abused her role as first lady? Or is this going to be another one on the list of terrible things Hillary has done but with nothing to backup.

Eleanor Roosevelt did a lot as the First Lady, held press conferences regulary, engaged in activism including on issues of race. Are you guys similarly outraged about the fact that she was a highly influential first lady? In fact, basically entirely adapted the role that first ladies would hold in the future. So to extend the logic, she was as crooked as Hillary was as first lady while her husband held office. Personally, I think she was fantastic. Roles change, get over it.

She was basically President towards the end!

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

marienbad

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Eh, no. If she wanted to be involved in policy making, she should have sought elected office or appointment to a relevant Department. You know, like everyone else does.

Why ? that is not how the US system works - and it was known before the election that she would have a hands on role .

alastair

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

I'm interested to the court ruling you mention "she won a court ruling stating that the First Lady was a de facto federal official, in order to give herself a powerful role in high policymaking." can you link to it.

It was a ruling that stemmed from an appeal against her role on a Clinton administration task force, so it didn't come from her seeking any new role as First Lady. The naysayers appeal just ended up confirming that the First Lady had the same status as other presidential appointees.

Lirange

TheDoctor wrote: »

Saw it on youtube this morning.

Before this election I thought Kelly was further right but seems to be fairly central now.

Perhaps the drama she had with Trump at the start or Ailes departure may have shifted her leftwards.

I doubt she has shifted "leftwards." That it even seems that way is an indictment on just how tits up things have gone. O'Reilly is a lickarse who after being initially wary of DT out of the gate now panders to his crowd because he really does only care about his ratings. Although Hannity is just a nutbar who genuinely does like Trump and his platform.

Kelly is solid right but the one caveat is that she's big on women's issues. Genuinely so, always has been, and she loves to emasculate boorish thickos like BillO when she's crossed. Apparently not all traditional conservative voting women in the USA take a cro-magnon bible belt approach certainly not the "coastal elite" corporate conservative types.

From a few years ago:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBE_iq6wx9k

marienbad

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Come on Permabear , you can do better than that ! HRC was also appointed by the president .

You are allowing your dislike of her to cloud your reasoning

alastair

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It does show she's more popular than Trump though. Which is just popular enough.

B_Wayne

K-9 wrote: »

She was basically President towards the end!

True that, she was a pretty amazing individual.

20Cent

B_Wayne wrote: »

True that, she was a pretty amazing individual.

Nancy Reagan "just say no to drugs", was also a big influence on government and pretty much president towards the end.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

That depends on whether Cecil the Lions killer is running for president or not I suppose.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

marienbad

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I am not saying it is and I think you know that . She was appointed to head the task force on health reform by the President . Just like Powell, Rice etc to their respective roles were by President Bush .

And it was known before the election that she would play some sort of role .

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Overheal

What's that? A refreshing change of subject?!

http://lawnewz.com/politics/ted-cruz-hints-gop-controlled-senate-will-block-any-clinton-scotus-nominee/

Yes Cruz has apparently suggested that there would be precedent for keeping the Supreme Court underfilled if the American public doesn't vote the way they want

marienbad

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I am not confusing anything Permabear - she was appointed to a position by the President , the fact that it was not a cabinet position is neither here nor there . The White House Chief of Staff is not a cabinet position either though as far as I know it is the same level . And there are many examples right down through the 'grades' over the years .

Just none that were the First Lady .

Black Swan

Donald Trump is a defendant for (alleged) "fraud, racketeering, and corruption" as founder of the failed Trump University in US District Court, San Diego, CA, with the first trial date scheduled for 28 November 2016. His lawyers have requested that the trial date be moved back to either 12 December 2016 or 2 January 2017, but I have not found what the ruling was regarding this requested rescheduling. This case has been delayed for over 6 years, and continues with more delays. Anyone?

Overheal

Black Swan wrote: »

Donald Trump is a defendant for (alleged) "fraud, racketeering, and corruption" as founder of the failed Trump University in US District Court, San Diego, CA, with the first trial date scheduled for 28 November 2016. His lawyers have requested that the trial date be moved back to either 12 December 2016 or 2 January 2017, but I have not found what the ruling was regarding this requested rescheduling. This case has been delayed for over 6 years, and continues with more delays. Anyone?

I find the first requested date rather interesting, as he is due for a hearing in Manhattan on 12/16/16. Now I'm curious what he has scheduled in January that he wants to get out of

Black Swan

Conservative talk radio host Joe Walsh: "On November 8th, I'm voting for Trump," Walsh tweeted. "On November 9th, if Trump loses, I'm grabbing my musket."

"Participating in acts of civil disobedience. Doing what it takes to get our country back."

If this tweet had been made by someone with a Arabic spelled name, would they be immediately investigated by FBI agents using the PATRIOT act, or would it be written off as harmless political rhetoric protected under free speech? No matter the motive of Joe Walsh, such speech is troublesome, especially if there are a few wackos out there reading it like the one that tried to assassinate congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

Overheal

The reaction tweets for that were great,

https://twitter.com/ClinicEscort/status/791383598620348416?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/CreativeTweets/status/791375887195312128?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

https://twitter.com/EricDSnider/status/791376069328637952?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Igotadose

Isn't that the guy that fouled his shorts to keep from serving, and was a washed-up rock and roller prior to getting 'right wing talk show host' religion?

Another Trumplodyte with a microphone and a website. Ghods help America.

Quin_Dub

Black Swan wrote: »

Conservative talk radio host Joe Walsh: "On November 8th, I'm voting for Trump," Walsh tweeted. "On November 9th, if Trump loses, I'm grabbing my musket."

"Participating in acts of civil disobedience. Doing what it takes to get our country back."

If this tweet had been made by someone with a Arabic spelled name, would they be immediately investigated by FBI agents using the PATRIOT act, or would it be written off as harmless political rhetoric protected under free speech? No matter the motive of Joe Walsh, such speech is troublesome, especially if there are a few wackos out there reading it like the one that tried to assassinate congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords.

That's the truly scary part - I fully expect that there will be polling day incidents where some Trump Observers get into it with people they perceive to be "rogue" voters.

Equally I fully expect there to be some kind of incident in the subsequent days when some nut job attempts (and hopefully doesn't succeed) some messed up "act of patriotism" following the likely Clinton victory..

Trump and his surrogates will absolutely have to take responsibility for that because of their infantile "Rigged Election" , "It's being stolen from you" rhetoric..

Zubeneschamali

20Cent wrote: »

They're about to elect her President so it must have worked.

And I wouldn't bet against Michelle Obama winning the presidency sometime before she is Hillary's age.

Zubeneschamali

Overheal wrote: »

Yes Cruz has apparently suggested that there would be precedent for keeping the Supreme Court underfilled if the American public doesn't vote the way they want

Harry Reid has already said that the Democrats will nuke the filibuster if the Republicans in the Senate refuse to handle Clinton's appointee.

wes

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Equally I fully expect there to be some kind of incident in the subsequent days when some nut job attempts (and hopefully doesn't succeed) some messed up "act of patriotism" following the likely Clinton victory..

FBI already foiled such an attack that was planned by Trump supporters:

Attack on Somalis in Kansas thwarted, feds say

At Least One Of The Men Arrested In Plot To Car Bomb US Mosque Is A Trump Supporter

Surprised that Hilary didn't make a bigger deal of it really. I guess Trump has so completely destroyed himself, that there was no need.

Black Swan

Methinks that in this unique presidential election year, the way Pennsylvania goes, the way the election will go. PA is a must win for Trump, and a firewall for Clinton if she loses both Ohio and Florida. If there is some merit to this subjective, unscientific Swannie armchair observation, today the PA polls and models do not look good for Trump.

Then again, there are still almost 12 days to go before D-day USA, and a late surprise for either nominee could happen. Doubt that the continuing flow of Wikileaks will result in any major voter shift against Clinton, especially with the mind-dulling systematic desensitisation of voters with 15 months of emails, emails, emails, emails, and not much else. Nor does it appear that there will be a 2nd Trump October big surprise like the 8 October 2016 groping tape. If a 2nd tape as bad or worse than tape #1 emerged, GAME OVER Trump!

Reviewing today the long RCP list of Pennsylvania state polls by many organisations, you have to go all the way back to poll 28 taken 30 June to 11 July 2016 by Quinnipiac to find the first one where Trump led Clinton, and that was only by +2 spread. Since that time Clinton has consistently led Trump in all 27 polls ranging from +1 to +12 spread. The most recent PA polls appear to be tightening as 8 November draws near, which is normal for presidential elections, but doubtful that there will be a sudden and inexplicable flip in the next 11-12 days if PA voters continue to hear the same repetitive and increasingly boring messages from both nominees and their surrogates.

Rather than tightening as D-day nears, Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight forecast for Pennsylvania (4 hours ago) appears to show increasing favourability for Clinton with 89.2% and Trump 10.8% polls-only model, and Clinton 88.1% and Trump 11.9% polls-plus (fundamentals) model. Rather than a normal distribution curve in their forecasting models, Silver uses the more cautious t-test as part of their analytic significance testing, which may benefit Trump and understate Clinton. Methinks that today's 89.2% PA Clinton forecast was extraordinary, and to some extent for me incredible, so if Trump wins PA in less than 12 days, both the last 27 polls and FiveThirtyEight's analytic models would have been totally trashed by such things as unforeseen systematic errors, fundamental weighting errors, sampling errors, etc. Such a trashing methinks would thereby suggest both the polls and models for other states were in like manner trashed, thereby suggesting a Trump presidential win. Not likely, but I guess we will see.

TheDoctor

Alex Jones just called the election for Trump.

Can close the thread.

Christy42

Black Swan wrote: »

Methinks that in this unique presidential election year, the way Pennsylvania goes, the way the election will go. PA is a must win for Trump, and a firewall for Clinton if she loses both Ohio and Florida. If there is some merit to this subjective, unscientific Swannie armchair observation, today the PA polls and models do not look good for Trump.

Then again, there are still almost 12 days to go before D-day USA, and a late surprise for either nominee could happen. Doubt that the continuing flow of Wikileaks will result in any major voter shift against Clinton, especially with the mind-dulling systematic desensitisation of voters with 15 months of emails, emails, emails, emails, and not much else. Nor does it appear that there will be a 2nd Trump October big surprise like the 8 October 2016 groping tape. If a 2nd tape as bad or worse than tape #1 emerged, GAME OVER Trump!

Reviewing today the long RCP list of Pennsylvania state polls by many organisations, you have to go all the way back to poll 28 taken 30 June to 11 July 2016 by Quinnipiac to find the first one where Trump led Clinton, and that was only by +2 spread. Since that time Clinton has consistently led Trump in all 27 polls ranging from +1 to +12 spread. The most recent PA polls appear to be tightening as 8 November draws near, which is normal for presidential elections, but doubtful that there will be a sudden and inexplicable flip in the next 11-12 days if PA voters continue to hear the same repetitive and increasingly boring messages from both nominees and their surrogates.

Rather than tightening as D-day nears, Nate Silver's FiveThirtyEight forecast for Pennsylvania (4 hours ago) appears to show increasing favourability for Clinton with 89.2% and Trump 10.8% polls-only model, and Clinton 88.1% and Trump 11.9% polls-plus (fundamentals) model. Rather than a normal distribution curve in their forecasting models, Silver uses the more cautious t-test as part of their analytic significance testing, which may benefit Trump and understate Clinton. Methinks that today's 89.2% PA Clinton forecast was extraordinary, and to some extent for me incredible, so if Trump wins PA in less than 12 days, both the last 27 polls and FiveThirtyEight's analytic models would have been totally trashed by such things as unforeseen systematic errors, fundamental weighting errors, sampling errors, etc. Such a trashing methinks would thereby suggest both the polls and models for other states were in like manner trashed, thereby suggesting a Trump presidential win. Not likely, but I guess we will see.

Hardly. 10% chances happen frequently enough.

I saw an article today saying that Trump's odds are about the same as yours in a game of Russian Roulette. If I saw someone losing a game of that I would not say my model for predicting the outcome was wrong. Just that the low probability outcome happened.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The POTUS is free to appoint pretty much at will. The entire cabinet is appointed and not elected, do you also have issues with that?

Amerika

Brian? wrote: »

The POTUS is free to appoint pretty much at will. The entire cabinet is appointed and not elected, do you also have issues with that?

Cabinet positions are given to people who have expertise in the areas of the appointment made by the president. What expertise did Hillary Clinton have?

Timberrrrrrrr

Amerika wrote: »

Cabinet positions are given to people who have expertise in the areas of the appointment made by the president. What expertise did Hillary Clinton have?

And presidents should be people who have expertise in the political arena, what expertise does Trump have?

Amerika

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

And presidents should be people who have expertise in the political arena, what expertise does Trump have?

The executive branch of government serves primarily as an administrative role. Trump does have that experience.

Timberrrrrrrr

Amerika wrote: »

The executive branch of government serves primarily as an administrative role. Trump does have that experience.

Nice one, maybe President Clinton will give him an administration job after the elections are over.

Amerika

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Nice one, maybe President Clinton will give him an administration job after the elections are over.

Let's hope it's Attorney General.

Timberrrrrrrr

Amerika wrote: »

Let's hope it's Attorney General.

Just keep the perv away from the typing pool 😊

Amerika

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Just keep the perv away from the typing pool 😊

Bill?

But I digress.

The polls continue to tighten. Unfortunately, even if Trump does happen to win the popular vote on election day, I still don’t see any path to him getting to 270 in the electoral college.

Black Swan

Christy42 wrote: »

Hardly. 10% chances happen frequently enough.

I saw an article today saying that Trump's odds are about the same as yours in a game of Russian Roulette. If I saw someone losing a game of that I would not say my model for predicting the outcome was wrong. Just that the low probability outcome happened.

It may be that the outcome falls towards the end of a probability distribution curve as you suggest, and Trump wins. Then again, modeling presidential election forecasts goes way beyond a simple probability estimate, and certainly does not correspond well with comparisons between measuring largely physical and mechanical phenomena (Russian Roulette) and human behaviour (subjective poll opinions and voting outcomes). What analysts like Nate Silver are attempting to do is describe, explain, and predict election outcomes using as many as 3 different models, which he himself has cautioned his reader may be subject to flaws, some of which may confound forecast outcomes and render probability estimates meaningless.

Further, his polls-only, polls-plus, and now-cast models all use secondary data collected by many different organisations with differences in their methodologies, sampling, time frames, and data collection techniques which compels Silver and his team to qualitatively rank each polling organisation using a subjective F- through A+ grade, which is later quantified within his model algorhythm. Triangulation between qualitative and quantitative methods should be observed with caution; e.g., precision may be lost with qualitative; quantifying qualitative problems; etc.

Furthermore, polling is an example of survey research, which is not as rigorous as controlled experimental designs, and lacks precision, as well as the random assignment of subjects to experimental and control groups, such random assignments being one necessary (but insufficient condition by itself) when attempting to estimate population parameters (all voters) from sample statistics (small number of subjects asked in poll). This may be compounded by the fact that each poll is cross-sectional (one moment in time), and not longitudinal, the latter of which allows for before-and-after comparisons when attempting to establish cause-and-effect probability estimates. There are ways to approximate longitudinal with cross-sectional (e.g., cross-lag designs, etc.), but they too should be observed with caution.

And lastly, Silver himself has noted that caution should be exercised when viewing his forecasting probability estimates (Clinton vs Trump), because statistics works better with large data sets, and the number of presidential elections every four years with adequate polling data for comparison purposes are not that many. This does not mean that we toss out all that is survey research, polls, or forecasts based upon statistical models, rather we should acknowledge the limitations of any research design before we make decisions based upon their results, conclusions, and probability estimates; i.e, things scientific do not prove, only suggest.

**Apologies Christy! I've pulled an all nighter, and got to cut back on the coffee!** :eek:

Overheal

Since the start of the month the map has shifted, and we have 3 very clear battleground states in the last 12 days of the election season.

Five Thirty Eight projects a race almost too close to call in Ohio, Iowa, and Arizona. North Carolina, Florida, and Nevada will swing Blue unless Trump makes considerable momentum in the home stretch.

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

However, even if Trump pulls off winning all of these states, he can get damn close, but not over the critical line of 270

http://www.270towin.com/maps/xwb3n

And that would have to be done assuming the Clinton campaign kicked its feet up and drank mimosas for days, then maybe - maybe they take New Hampshire, triggering an electroal 269-269 deadlock... the chances of that statistically negligible. With early voting already underway, and most people already decided, it is going to have to take some massive scandal - and comprehensive enough that it doesn't require a whole lot of digest - happening by Saturday or thereabouts, to have enough time to disseminate the information among voters and sway the vote. Failing that, Trump's chance at victory is toast. Unfortunately, his "movement" will probably endure..

/has also pulled an all nighter.

Christy42

Black Swan wrote: »

It may be that the outcome falls towards the end of a probability distribution curve as you suggest, and Trump wins. Then again, modeling presidential election forecasts goes way beyond a simple probability estimate, and certainly does not correspond well with comparisons between measuring largely physical and mechanical phenomena (Russian Roulette) and human behaviour (subjective poll opinions and voting outcomes). What analysts like Nate Silver are attempting to do is describe, explain, and predict election outcomes using as many as 3 different models, which he himself has cautioned his reader may be subject to flaws, some of which may confound forecast outcomes and render probability estimates meaningless.

Further, his polls-only, polls-plus, and now-cast models all use secondary data collected by many different organisations with differences in their methodologies, sampling, time frames, and data collection techniques which compels Silver and his team to qualitatively rank each polling organisation using a subjective F- through A+ grade, which is later quantified within his model algorhythm. Triangulation between qualitative and quantitative methods should be observed with caution; e.g., precision may be lost with qualitative; quantifying qualitative problems; etc.

Furthermore, polling is an example of survey research, which is not as rigorous as controlled experimental designs, and lacks precision, as well as the random assignment of subjects to experimental and control groups, such random assignments being one necessary (but insufficient condition by itself) when attempting to estimate population parameters (all voters) from sample statistics (small number of subjects asked in poll). This may be compounded by the fact that each poll is cross-sectional (one moment in time), and not longitudinal, the latter of which allows for before-and-after comparisons when attempting to establish cause-and-effect probability estimates. There are ways to approximate longitudinal with cross-sectional (e.g., cross-lag designs, etc.), but they too should be observed with caution.

And lastly, Silver himself has noted that caution should be exercised when viewing his forecasting probability estimates (Clinton vs Trump), because statistics works better with large data sets, and the number of presidential elections every four years with adequate polling data for comparison purposes are not that many. This does not mean that we toss out all that is survey research, polls, or forecasts based upon statistical models, rather we should acknowledge the limitations of any research design before we make decisions based upon their results, conclusions, and probability estimates; i.e, things scientific do not prove, only suggest.

**Apologies Christy! I've pulled an all nighter, and got to cut back on the coffee!** :eek:

No worries. I agree with you. I had just worried it was another case of assuming the odds presented must be wrong because the low probability outcome occurred but I was a bit over zealous jumping the gun.


Now get some sleep.

gosplan

Amerika wrote: »

The executive branch of government serves primarily as an administrative role. Trump does have that experience.

So you're saying that Trump shouldn't be in cabinet but should be president?

Riiiiigggghhhhhttttttt.