2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Republican Party has swung significantly to the right after Reagan. But there's no doubt that the inflection point you're really referring to began in 1964 with Goldwater. No boring history lesson for you caftards today, but Goldwater was a hard core right winger in 1964 (though in the 1980s he turned hard left, at least for a Republican). Nixon, a loathesome creature without any question, left a long record of "liberal achievements" and I'll leave it up to you to verify this wild claim with a quick google search. Ford, meh, but he was no right-winger. Reagan's rhetoric was right-wingish, but he'd be considered a "RINO" by today's Republican cretins, although they know to pay tribute to his name even while they have no real comprehension of his record either as potus or as governor of California. I've spoken to Jerry Brown about Reagan on several occasions and I can tell you Jerry respects and praises much of what Reagan got done as potus and as governor.

You really have to get past the blinkers. It's easy to get emotional about politics, as Trump's idiotic worshippers prove every day, but when a man is dead it's appropriate to view his record with clear eyes, wins and warts. Reagan disgraced the country with the Iran-country deal and his lack of interest in dealing with AIDS (ironic, as he was known in Hollywood to be accepting of gays and he defended gays in his office who were outed in the last few years of his tenure governor) but you have to look at his willingness to raise taxes to shore up Social Security and other bipartisan accomplishments before condemning him as the moron you paint him to be.

As for today, I cannot deny the insanity that has descended on the Republicans. I know quite a few Reps who can never vote for Trump, but they're vastly outnumbered by those who can. And will. Shame and eternal dishonor.

Gonna have to disagree with you again. Goldwater/Nixon conservatism lacked the religious element of the southern hucksters, lacked anti tax crusade zeal, lacked libertarian mouth breathing "free" market anti regulation propaganda, lacked the shameless corporate ass lick, the anti environmentalism and lacked these young douchebag true believers in the Rove, Reed, Norquist, Abramahoff mold. I was very political aware at that time and there was this massive new right wing thang going on behind Ronald Reagan that was very very newish and powerful, that is perfectly reflected in what the Republican party has become.

Sure Nixon and Goldwater shared the militarism, enthusiastic tendencies toward police and jailing and anything in authoritarian style uniforms, small government, tradition and traditional conservative family values, and a penchant for racism, anti liberal etc, but I´m not sure you´re getting a very noticeable break from Reagan and those two characters. Conservatism felt battered after the Nixon impeachment and the liberalism of Carter, and they were going to "take back" Murica and in a new, hardcore right wing way. No prisoners taken. There was a new wave coming with Ronnie and it´s breaking now after covering the conservative movement for so long.
 
Last edited:
@langster

I like seeing him in a setting where he is asked soft/leftist questions and deviates from the stump speech. Thanks for the link.

@MrMarcello these are the kinds of answers and spontaneous replies for which I love him.
 
@langster

I like seeing him in a setting where he is asked soft/leftist questions and deviates from the stump speech. Thanks for the link.

:lol: It's no different to seeing Trump on Hannity really, but I too love seeing him actually explain his policies, where they come from, how he formed those opinions and how he would actually implement many of them. To be fair to Cenk, he did hit him hard with a couple at the start. It's also really nice to see Bernie's actual opinions on Hillary and Trump. It's also refreshing to see someone actually answer questions and not avoid them, no matter that it's more akin to a couple of mates chatting over a coffee than a full on policy grilling.
 
Last edited:
So Trump chickened out on the Sanders debate once he realized there was a high probability he would get embarrassed with actual specifics.
 
Bernie just gave a clear no for a Jill Stein endorsement. Talked of Nader/Bush.
And refused to talk about the Warren non-endorsement, citing privacy.
And he just had this brilliant befuddled+disgusted look when talking about Trump's positions on climate change.
 
And he just had this brilliant befuddled+disgusted look when talking about Trump's positions on climate change.

He said earlier in the chat/interview that he was petrified of a Trump Presidency. He called him a pathological liar yet again, and just shook his head when mentioning his failings and contradictions, but you can see and hear it in his voice, he is (rightfully so) absolutely shit scared of a Trump victory, as any sane or intelligent person should be.
 
He said earlier in the chat/interview that he was petrified of a Trump Presidency. He called him a pathological liar yet again, and just shook his head when mentioning his failings and contradictions, but you can see and hear it in his voice, he is (rightfully so) absolutely shit scared of a Trump victory, as any sane or intelligent person should be.


Yes, I will never understand a Bernie voter who thinks Trump > Hillary. It's such narrow and stupid "thinking". The "establishment" doesn't like either so they're as good as each other. I mean, look at the damn man. He's a thuggish dictatorial right-winger.
 
He's a thuggish dictatorial right-winger.

I have ranted on about Drumpf Ad Nauseam, it's no secret of my dislike of him. He's a bullshitting, lying, disgusting, narcissistic, egotistical, moron. He's either exceedingly stupid and thick, or a nasty vicious conman with little or no regard for anything except himself, or as I suspect, a strange mixture of both. Whichever or whatever he is, he IS extremely dangerous, and it's not funny anymore. It was a bit at the start, but it's really not now, and I just shake my head when anyone tries to defend him or justify voting for him.

I really find it hard to stop myself going off on a full rant about him. He's such a feckwit and I just find it almost impossible to accept he's got this far, and i'm far from alone feeling like that. Pure insanity!
 
Gonna have to disagree with you again. Goldwater/Nixon conservatism lacked the religious element of the southern hucksters, lacked anti tax crusade zeal, lacked libertarian mouth breathing "free" market anti regulation propaganda, lacked the shameless corporate ass lick, the anti environmentalism and lacked these young douchebag true believers in the Rove, Reed, Norquist, Abramahoff mold. I was very political aware at that time and there was this massive new right wing thang going on behind Ronald Reagan that was very very newish and powerful, that is perfectly reflected in what the Republican party has become.

Sure Nixon and Goldwater shared the militarism, enthusiastic tendencies toward police and jailing and anything in authoritarian style uniforms, small government, tradition and traditional conservative family values, and a penchant for racism, anti liberal etc, but I´m not sure you´re getting a very noticeable break from Reagan and those two characters. Conservatism felt battered after the Nixon impeachment and the liberalism of Carter, and they were going to "take back" Murica and in a new, hardcore right wing way. No prisoners taken. There was a new wave coming with Ronnie and it´s breaking now after covering the conservative movement for so long.

Maybe we're saying the same thing, maybe we're not. What I'm saying is that insanity we're seeing today -- and I believe we agree the today's Reps are insane -- began in the early 1990s after the defeat of George Herbert Walker Bush, who was in no way a religious radical, zealot, crackpot, moron or cretin.

You're free to disagree with Daddy Bush on the issues, but you're out of your mind if you think Daddy Bush was a knuckle-dragging neoconfederate.

in 1992 Daddy Bush lost to Clinton (courtesy of Perot), for better or worse, and the Reps learned their lesson, as they saw it, by taking a hard right turn with Gingrich in 1994. Too much detail, I suppose, but the "lesson" Reps learned from Bush was never to cave in on tax increases. Bush "caved in" on the luxury tax, a brilliant feat of political jiu jitsu by George Mitchell, a Dem from Maine. What was his ploy? Jamming a tax increase on "luxury" products such as expensive cars and, of course, yachts. A very long story short, it was moronic policy that not only did not bring in the revenues that were expected, but it cost US jobs. All documented. Mitchell knew this going into the deal. But he got Bush to sign the deal in the name of fiscal prudence, Bush lost his re-election bid on grounds that he broke his pledge to oppose any tax increases ("read my lips") and shortly after Bush was taken out the luxury tax was repealed. The New England boat building industry was crippled for years thereafter but finally came back in the mid 2000s. Anyway, Daddy Bush was in no a Gingrich-Palin-Trump Republican.

History records the Reps took the House in 1994 (and we took the majority in California that year in the State Assembly), on the back of a motley of crew of cretins who eventually impeached Clinton, an action I urged the Republicans not to take but no one listened. They lurched further and further to the right with every election, taking out "RINOs" and replacing them with clowns like Dave Brat, who took out Eric Cantor on grounds that Cantor was too cozy with "the establishment". Like Gingrich, Brat's "scholarship" has been exposed as clownish, barely worthy of even Trump University.

The decisive turn for the worse was in 1994, not in 1980. I'm happy to entertain differences of opinion of whatever, but you gotta get your basic history right before going any further.
 
@Spock How do you explain Reagan starting his general election campaign in 1980, *incidentally* the first election since 1964 that George Wallace was not running, in Philadelphia, Mississipi? Or his embrace of the religious right agenda, abstinence only education etc?

Electioneering, all of that, for sure. Reagan might be a wonderful man in private, but the cold hard fact is that he very much played on white, Christian resentment at the time against racial and social progress in America to get into office, thereby legitimizing what should have been fringe factions into national political discourse. I'm aware Clinton also played to some of those sentiments in his 92 campaign, like the Sister Souljah comment or the execution, but Reagan was the one who really gave them the platform to influence American politics. He happily played up the 'welfare queen' bullcrap, which demonize minorities and stoking racial division, and cut heavily into entitlements to satisfy his campaign pledge of 7% GDP military budget.

There's also a long profile on The Atlantic detailing his OBM head and their budget fight during his first term. The administration and Republicans in Congress knew 'supply side economics' was just a new dressing on the debunked trickle down economics conservatives pursued before and delegitimised by 60/70s Keynesian approach. Do you think he did good for the US by knowingly let that fester by following them to a T, while ballooning the debt with his military spending?
 
Wasn´t Chuck D pissed off a while ago that he couldn´t get an invite to the White House?

It would´ve been brilliant to have invited him over to chill with Barry and celebrate the 20 year anniversary of the release of Fear of a Black Planet. Field a few questions from the press corp together and bask in the collective conniption of Fox News and right wing America, ha ha.

C'mon Barack, it´s not too late!

Fox shit their pants when he invited Common to the WH, if Chuck D was in there they'd be exploding.
 
Maybe we're saying the same thing, maybe we're not. What I'm saying is that insanity we're seeing today -- and I believe we agree the today's Reps are insane -- began in the early 1990s after the defeat of George Herbert Walker Bush, who was in no way a religious radical, zealot, crackpot, moron or cretin.

You're free to disagree with Daddy Bush on the issues, but you're out of your mind if you think Daddy Bush was a knuckle-dragging neoconfederate.

in 1992 Daddy Bush lost to Clinton (courtesy of Perot), for better or worse, and the Reps learned their lesson, as they saw it, by taking a hard right turn with Gingrich in 1994. Too much detail, I suppose, but the "lesson" Reps learned from Bush was never to cave in on tax increases. Bush "caved in" on the luxury tax, a brilliant feat of political jiu jitsu by George Mitchell, a Dem from Maine. What was his ploy? Jamming a tax increase on "luxury" products such as expensive cars and, of course, yachts. A very long story short, it was moronic policy that not only did not bring in the revenues that were expected, but it cost US jobs. All documented. Mitchell knew this going into the deal. But he got Bush to sign the deal in the name of fiscal prudence, Bush lost his re-election bid on grounds that he broke his pledge to oppose any tax increases ("read my lips") and shortly after Bush was taken out the luxury tax was repealed. The New England boat building industry was crippled for years thereafter but finally came back in the mid 2000s. Anyway, Daddy Bush was in no a Gingrich-Palin-Trump Republican.

History records the Reps took the House in 1994 (and we took the majority in California that year in the State Assembly), on the back of a motley of crew of cretins who eventually impeached Clinton, an action I urged the Republicans not to take but no one listened. They lurched further and further to the right with every election, taking out "RINOs" and replacing them with clowns like Dave Brat, who took out Eric Cantor on grounds that Cantor was too cozy with "the establishment". Like Gingrich, Brat's "scholarship" has been exposed as clownish, barely worthy of even Trump University.

The decisive turn for the worse was in 1994, not in 1980. I'm happy to entertain differences of opinion of whatever, but you gotta get your basic history right before going any further.

Daddy Bush used Lee Atwater to get himself elected. You should check out the below interview when Atwater was working in the Reagan White House for an idea about how they used minorities issues to get votes:

 
The Orange idiot is on O'Reilly talking absolute bollocks as normal. He's also getting extremely flustered by some simple questions from Bill. When asked what he would do about Isis in particular, he said go in bomb them and take the oil. when pointed out that taking oil and defeating Isis would require ground forces he said he wouldn't do that, and would rely on Americas allies seeing as America provided them will all their equipment and they have "all the Humvees" then two minutes later he moaned and said America had the "worst allies, and had none really" apparently as soon as a shot is fired Americas so called allies run the other way. Then blah blah usual contradictory and uninformed shit, including something that not a lot of people know anything about and something only he does which is "dark banking channels" that only he knows about and he discovered.

Two little things I noticed aside from the fact yet again he knows feck all about anything, but the first thing was how flustered he was getting when Bill asked him follow up questions. I've not seen him get flustered like this for a while. You could tell if Bill pushed just a little harder he would have blown. He was there for the taking. He can talk his usual nonsense but has real trouble explaining anything when asked to follow it up or to elaborate, especially with examples. This is obviously why he doesn't want to debate Bernie, and hopefully it could be something that could trip him up later on as he will obviously have to be interviewed and have more debates where he should be pushed on policy issues. Outside of cosy Fox interviews he could be in real trouble.

The other thing I noticed was yet again another attack on America's allies. He is really isolating himself here and his continual bad mouthing of other countries will surely not help him and could possibly backfire badly. It's also extremely disrespectful to all the countries who have committed troops to back America up and all the families of those who have been injured or lost their lives doing so. Trump's supporters obviously won't give a shit about that but so many other people will.

This is what really pisses me off about Trump supporters. Their main argument or defence is that Trump will be great on national security and foreign policy. Where is the evidence for that? Quite simply there isn't any, at all. His wall, as has been proven many times is unworkable and completely unaffordable, not to mention probably not efficient either. It also doesn't solve the problem of all the illegal immigrants currently in the USA that all experts admit would cost billions to find and remove, not to mention the knock on effect to the work force by doing so.

Trump has already pissed off so many countries and he has bad mouthed many more. He has also made moronic statements like he would never say he wouldn't nuke Europe because "it's a big place" He has pissed off Canada, Europe and especially the UK, Mexico, China, Japan and the worlds entire Muslim population. That is not a good way to start a presidency and it is also playing right in to every terrorist groups hands with his ridiculous and extremely dangerous rhetoric and hyperbole. Isis and the like would love President Trump as in their eyes it would give them justification for more attacks. How on earth could Trump be seen as a man to make America safer? If anything it is the complete opposite.

Next on the list you have the Trump voters say he will sort out Americas debt and create jobs and solve the money problems. Again, what proof of that is there? He has been bankrupt FOUR TIMES! He refuses to submit tax returns because everyone knows he has lied about charitable donations and he is also not worth anything near what he values himself at. He admitted in an interview he believes his valuation is based around how much he values the Trump name, not how much money he actually has, or how much he is actually worth. He is full of shit. He is also being sued on numerous different counts, but especially about Trump University where many respected lawyers say he has a real problem. And on top of all that he has continually employed cheap FOREIGN LABOUR to carry out the vast majority of his building work, including ties to the Mafia for work on Trump Tower and Trump Plaza.


So we have the racism, the bigotry, the sexism, the homophobia, the climate change acceptance caught on tape when he was playing on his golf course, but complete denial now, the flip flopping about every single subject from abortion to gay marriage, the donating of money to the Clintons and them being at his wedding, the outright lies about every single topic he speaks about, the lack of knowledge about absolutely anything, the foul language, the moronic birther attacks on Obama, ties to the mob, John Barron/John Miller nonsense, the rape allegations, the wife beating, the perverted and disgusting comments about his own Daughter, the riots outside his rallies, the condoning violence against protestors, the attacks on women, especially Megyn Kelly, Trump university and ongoing law suits, the ridiculous promotion of non existing or bankrupt businesses on stage live on TV during the Florida Primary, being caught on tape about the financial crisis being good for rich people to make money when the poor lost their houses, comments from many ex employees, hiring of cheap foreign labour for most of his work, the Putin comments, waging war with China and Japan, the fights with the UK Prime Minister and the Mayor of London, the attack on The Pope, mocking a disabled journalist, the attacks on Ted Cruz's wife, the myriad of important, intelligent and experienced people that have called him out on his BS, the hypocrisy about his own merchandise being made overseas in Mexico and China, saying he wouldn't ever say he wouldn't nuke Europe, saying he was up for other countries like South Korea having nukes, him not knowing about the Nuclear Triad, him wanting to remove restrictions on Wall Street, wanting to undo all the good work Obama has done on nuclear proliferation, wanting to undo all the progress made on climate change and renewable energy, the attack on NATO, him clearly not understanding how the government works, him not knowing the Constitution or bill of rights properly, his attacks on the press and wanting a change of laws that would violate the freedom of speech and freedom of the press, his numerous bankruptcies and law suits against him, draft dodging on numerous occasions, lack of tax returns, lies about wealth......................

And that's just off the top of my head. It's absolutely insane how anyone could be considered candidate for President when you read that little lot, and there's load more. Teflon Trump indeed. Hopefully the surface has been scratched now and things will start to stick until he eventually burns.
 
@Spock How do you explain Reagan starting his general election campaign in 1980, *incidentally* the first election since 1964 that George Wallace was not running, in Philadelphia, Mississipi? Or his embrace of the religious right agenda, abstinence only education etc?
He didn't, he started it in Neshoba and it was a popular campaigning spot. Other candidates campaigned there as well.
 
He didn't, he started it in Neshoba and it was a popular campaigning spot. Other candidates campaigned there as well.

As part of his 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan made an appearance at the Neshoba County Fair where he gave a speech on August 3, 1980. The speech drew attention for his use of the phrase "states' rights". Critics claim that Reagan's choice of location for the speech (the fairgrounds were just a few miles from Philadelphia, Mississippi, a town associated with the 1964 murders of civil rights workers) was evidence of racial bias.

As for why it's popular, gee.
 
I'm sure an obscure county fair in Mississipi got famous because of its wonderful people and beautiful scenery.
It's been a traditional political campaign stop for more than a century. It has nothing to do with the civil rights workers, much as you may like it to.

Are you claiming that Senator Glenn and Presidential nominee Dukakis, both of the Democratic Party, are also racists since they campaigned there?
 
It's been a traditional political campaign stop for more than a century. It has nothing to do with the civil rights workers, much as you may like it to.

Are you claiming that Senator Glenn and Presidential nominee Dukakis, both of the Democratic Party, are also racists since they campaigned there?

I'm not calling Reagan a racist, I don't know the man privately to determine a verdict either way.

What I'm saying is that he pandered to the racists to get elected. If you can't see the significance of a major party presidential nominee choosing that specific location as his general election campaign launch and proudly said 'I support states rights' in his speech, a phrase which according to his adviser Lee Atwater is codeword for race, then I have nothing more to discuss with you.

Glenn and Dukakis didn't launch their campaign there, and politicians from both parties pandered to white America during that period.
 
I'm not calling Reagan a racist, I don't know the man privately to determine a verdict either way.

What I'm saying is that he pandered to the racists to get elected. If you can't see the significance of a major party presidential nominee choosing that specific location as his general election campaign launch and proudly said 'I support states rights' in his speech, a phrase which according to his adviser Lee Atwater is codeword for race, then I have nothing more to discuss with you.

Glenn and Dukakis didn't launch their campaign there, and politicians from both parties pandered to white America during that period.
States rights is not the same thing at all as racism? Reagan was a strong supporter of states rights throughout his political career, including his time as California Governor. The speech was mostly about the economy and inflation, and didn't touch on the subject of race at all. You're using one sentence from a speech and massively exaggerating its meaning and significance.

Of course politicians pandered to white Americans during the period, they still do, it's a massive portion of the electorate after all. Politicians also pander to black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans and really any group of Americans that might vote for them. That's politics.
 
States rights is not the same thing at all as racism? Reagan was a strong supporter of states rights throughout his political career, including his time as California Governor. The speech was mostly about the economy and inflation, and didn't touch on the subject of race at all. You're using one sentence from a speech and massively exaggerating its meaning and significance.

Lee Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can't say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”

I rest my case.
 
I rest my case.
Yeah but that's Lee Atwater and not Reagan. An advisor having a certain unusual point of view doesn't make that also the point of view of his boss. And Atwater would be in the minority of conservatives on that, since states' rights is a long-standing perspective that pre-dates the civil war movement.

Being pro-states rights wasn't a move Reagan made to woo whites in that general election campaign, it's a view he held for a long time prior.
 
Yeah but that's Lee Atwater and not Reagan. An advisor having a certain unusual point of view doesn't make that also the point of view of his boss. And Atwater would be in the minority of conservatives on that, since states' rights is a long-standing perspective that pre-dates the civil war movement.

Being pro-states rights wasn't a move Reagan made to woo whites in that general election campaign, it's a view he held for a long time prior.

In an abstract way, it started out from the Jeffersonian belief in the country yeoman over urban aristocrat. But from the time of the Civil War onwards, it's been code for racism. What rights were most contested when the South first repeatedly invoke 'states rights'? Right, the rights to keep slaves.

Reagan did not start his campaign in his home state of California, he did not start his campaign in a Midwestern state crucial to his election like Ohio or Pensylvania, he did not start his campaign in the conservative heartland of Texas. Instead, he just happened to feel like trekking down South, became the first ever presidential nominee to campaign in that particular county where 16 years ago civil rights workers were murdered just a few miles from that site, and in his speech just happened to invoke states rights.

This is the collective head in the sand approach from conservatives that's so vexing to most of us. I have no problem saying that JFK was a very average president deified by the left, that LBJ had plenty of questionable behaviours/attitudes, and his Gulf of Tonkin actions were just as bad as Dubya's Mission Accomplished, and Bill Clinton, who I really like, is a morally grey character who were involved in plenty of shady stuffs, both in his public and private affairs. Yet somehow Ronald Reagan, who enthusiastically and cynically played to racial resentments and actively hurted PoC by his domestic policies, is supposed to be a great man all about 'Morning in America'. Sounds fair.
 
In an abstract way, it started out from the Jeffersonian belief in the country yeoman over urban aristocrat. But from the time of the Civil War onwards, it's been code for racism. What rights were most contested when the South first repeatedly invoke 'states rights'? Right, the rights to keep slaves.

Reagan did not start his campaign in his home state of California, he did not start his campaign in a Midwestern state crucial to his election like Ohio or Pensylvania, he did not start his campaign in the conservative heartland of Texas. Instead, he just happened to feel like trekking down South, became the first ever presidential nominee to campaign in that particular county where 16 years ago civil rights workers were murdered just a few miles from that site, and in his speech just happened to invoke states rights.

This is the collective head in the sand approach from conservatives that's so vexing to most of us. I have no problem saying that JFK was a very average president deified by the left, that LBJ had plenty of questionable behaviours/attitudes, and his Gulf of Tonkin actions were just as bad as Dubya's Mission Accomplished, and Bill Clinton, who I really like, is a morally grey character who were involved in plenty of shady stuffs, both in his public and private affairs. Yet somehow Ronald Reagan, who enthusiastically and cynically played to racial resentments and actively hurted PoC by his domestic policies, is supposed to be a great man all about 'Morning in America'. Sounds fair.
No one's saying Reagan was perfect. I don't really like the increase in military spending and the further entrenchment of the military-industrial complex under him. And of course there is the entire legacy of American covert involvement in South and Central America during that time (and other presidencies as well).

I don't really think Reagan cared much for racial politics, however. He was a very strict Law & Order type (too much sometimes) and with a lot of the civil movements of the time being pro-minority rights and anti-Vietnam War etc, he came off as being opposed to those positions politically. Similarly his opposition to portions of the Civil Rights Act and the ERA were more down to his views on less government regulation, reduction of unnecessary legislation, and states' rights than racial/sexist politics. He often mentioned in his speeches his desire to see all Americans treated equally regardless of ethnicity. He was very consistent on those positions. I couldn't see Reagan endorsing today's Republicans on DOMA, for example.
 
@langster, can we thread mark your post so that we can tick off those topics one by one as Trump flounders on them in interviews during election season? :D

Oh my, slightly embarrassed :lol: I was absolutely shattered last night and only half remember writing that :nervous:

I do remember him getting pretty hot under the collar at some of Bill O's questioning though, and as I said, it was exceedingly tame as you would expect from someone he knows well and often goes to baseball games with etc. It may just be wishful thinking but maybe the pressure is getting to him and he is finding it exceedingly more difficult to keep up the act and performance, because it Is exactly that, an act! And maybe, just maybe the melt down everyone has been expecting actually isn't too far away now either.

Fingers crossed!
 
Oh my, slightly embarrassed :lol: I was absolutely shattered last night and only half remember writing that :nervous:

I do remember him getting pretty hot under the collar at some of Bill O's questioning though, and as I said, it was exceedingly tame as you would expect from someone he knows well and often goes to baseball games with etc. It may just be wishful thinking but maybe the pressure is getting to him and he is finding it exceedingly more difficult to keep up the act and performance, because it Is exactly that, an act! And maybe, just maybe the melt down everyone has been expecting actually isn't too far away now either.

Fingers crossed!

I've been there.. in this very thread :D
 
@InfiniteBoredom

My problem with 538, in particular Enten, goes deeper.

1st article:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sanders-isnt-doing-well-with-true-independents/
In the Gallup poll, Sanders had a 35 percent favorable rating among independents who don’t lean toward either party. Clinton’s favorable rating with that group was 34 percent. Trump’s was a ridiculously low 16 percent.

He doesn't consider unfavourable ratings. Because, if he does:
favorability.png
He's a data journalist who has been analysing polls for years. How on earth do you look at favourables without considering unfavourables? It's the kind of maths Karl Rove was doing on Fox.


Then: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/
Apparently, if Iowa and Washington were open primaries, Bernie would have lost Iowa by 30 points and Washington by 6. Nevermind that every poll near the Iowa caucus had Bernie and Clinton within 10 points (average -3), 538 has a secret sauce formula that means we can disregard polls altogether apparently. For Washington, nevermind that Bernie won the closed primary in neighbouring, and equally liberal, Oregon by 12 points. Nevermind that earlier, Iowa and NH were the only 2 states Bernie would win based on demographics (source: 538). Also that they don't reveal what their formula is that is giving such unequivocal results. And then there is the whole issue of the misleading headline, but that may not be their fault (though they do run the website AFAIK).
 
@InfiniteBoredom

My problem with 538, in particular Enten, goes deeper.

1st article:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/sanders-isnt-doing-well-with-true-independents/


He doesn't consider unfavourable ratings. Because, if he does:
favorability.png
He's a data journalist who has been analysing polls for years. How on earth do you look at favourables without considering unfavourables? It's the kind of maths Karl Rove was doing on Fox.


Then: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-system-isnt-rigged-against-sanders/
Apparently, if Iowa and Washington were open primaries, Bernie would have lost Iowa by 30 points and Washington by 6. Nevermind that every poll near the Iowa caucus had Bernie and Clinton within 10 points (average -3), 538 has a secret sauce formula that means we can disregard polls altogether apparently. For Washington, nevermind that Bernie won the closed primary in neighbouring, and equally liberal, Oregon by 12 points. Nevermind that earlier, Iowa and NH were the only 2 states Bernie would win based on demographics (source: 538). Also that they don't reveal what their formula is that is giving such unequivocal results. And then there is the whole issue of the misleading headline, but that may not be their fault (though they do run the website AFAIK).
The final tally of the non-binding Washington primary was 785k votes, so in effect very near their projected 820k votes. Clinton won by 6 points.

We are certainly not privy to their maths, but I have a hard time believing that they have a hidden pro Clinton agenda. 538 is a niche site among politicos, and while Silver got some mainstream recognition, the vast majority of the electorate isn't familiar with him and certainly not much influenced.

As for favourability among 'true indeoendents', I believe he addressed that. In essence, most of them have a definite opinion of Clinton either way, while Sanders while having lot of rooms to work with is still unknown to most, and 'the more they get to know him the better they like him' simply isn't accurate.

Edit: just checked. Oregon was semi-closed. Independents voted.
 
Last edited:
The final tally of the non-binding Washington primary was 785k votes, so in effect very near their projected 820k votes. Clinton won by 6 points.

We are certainly not privy to their maths, but I have a hard time believing that they have a hidden pro Clinton agenda. 538 is a niche site among politicos, and while Silver got some mainstream recognition, the vast majority of the electorate isn't familiar with him and certainly not much influenced.

As for favourability among 'true indeoendents', I believe he addressed that. In essence, most of them have a definite opinion of Clinton either way, while Sanders while having lot of rooms to work with is still unknown to most, and 'the more they get to know him the better they like him' simply isn't accurate.

But can you seriously consider the results of a non-binding election? How on earth were the pre-caucus polls so wrong if the peopple of Washington are actually all closet centrists? Why the big divide with Oregon (again: closed primary)? They cherry-picked the single most favourable statistic (non-binding election results) and ran with it. No caveats, no looking back at the data to see how ridiculous their results are.
The same with favourability. Yes, he may not hold the commanding lead he has now if everyone has an opinion. But by not including unfavourables:
1. Clinton's favourable rating is 34 out of 85 decided
2. His is 35 out of 60 decided
You are not allowed to compare numbers like that without the denominator. Any paper I wrote would be chucked out by my own prof before submission if I included BS like that.*
Their (implicit: they don't mention this in that line) are basically assuming every undecided breaks against him. That's absurd. The only explanation, since I respect their work as stats people, is that they are letting their biases cloud their outcomes.
I'm absolutely not saying they are doing this to influence anyone (I don't think so at least). It's that they support Clinton and maybe enjoy seeing bitter complaint threads, or that they want to reinforce their own beliefs.

I'll again point out that using different types of data the lone pro-Sanders journalist on that site comes up with different outcomes. She's equally guilty (though she doesn't make blanket statements like Enten does).


*EDIT: an undergrad sophomore once caught my error (genuine error) like this in a lab meeting when I was myself an undergrad. It's insane.
 
Last edited:
But can you seriously consider the results of a non-binding election? How on earth were the pre-caucus polls so wrong if the peopple of Washington are actually all closet centrists? Why the big divide with Oregon (again: closed primary)? They cherry-picked the single most favourable statistic (non-binding election results) and ran with it. No caveats, no looking back at the data to see how ridiculous their results are.
are numbers like that without the denominator.

Yes you can, because voters this cycle have broken along the line of demographics, age and income instead of myopic momentum, so results like this or Nebraska when they also got a very big turn out is not to be scoffed at, especially when it ties into the general trend of Clinton doing very well with primaries in general, not just 'closed'. Also, to conflate her voters with closet centrists is also inaccurate, since she's tied or do better than him with self-identified .'very liberal' voters in some states.

Oregon ran an semi open primary on the Republican side and a closed primary on the Democratic side, but with mail in ballot and online registration deadline 3 weeks before voting, so essentially Sanders got a very big boost from first time voters and independents who got an easy time switching affiliation, not much different to a semi-open setting.

The same with favourability. Yes, he may not hold the commanding lead he has now if everyone has an opinion. But by not including unfavourables:
1. Clinton's favourable rating is 34 out of 85 decided
2. His is 35 out of 60 decided
You are not allowed to compare numbers like that without the denominator. Any paper I wrote would be chucked out by my own prof before submission if I included BS like that.*
Their (implicit: they don't mention this in that line) are basically assuming every undecided breaks against him. That's absurd. The only explanation, since I respect their work as stats people, is that they are letting their biases cloud their outcomes.

This I agree with, mostly, although with the caveat that it's feasible that the bolded could be the case, especially in a über negative campaign. I just pointed out in the previous post that that's Enten's reasoning, and Jesus knows I had a rant against him months ago for a daft article he wrote about Jim fecking Webb becoming the nominee which mysteriously disappeared. Then again, the point he made, in a roundabout way, is that at this moment Sanders isn't doing better with true independents, which technically is the case. I don't know whether they have editorial control, but apparently he could run with that. Judging from the tone of his Twitter exchanges, he certainly enjoy wumming Bernie Bros.
 
Maybe we're saying the same thing, maybe we're not. What I'm saying is that insanity we're seeing today -- and I believe we agree the today's Reps are insane -- began in the early 1990s after the defeat of George Herbert Walker Bush, who was in no way a religious radical, zealot, crackpot, moron or cretin.

You're free to disagree with Daddy Bush on the issues, but you're out of your mind if you think Daddy Bush was a knuckle-dragging neoconfederate.

in 1992 Daddy Bush lost to Clinton (courtesy of Perot), for better or worse, and the Reps learned their lesson, as they saw it, by taking a hard right turn with Gingrich in 1994. Too much detail, I suppose, but the "lesson" Reps learned from Bush was never to cave in on tax increases. Bush "caved in" on the luxury tax, a brilliant feat of political jiu jitsu by George Mitchell, a Dem from Maine. What was his ploy? Jamming a tax increase on "luxury" products such as expensive cars and, of course, yachts. A very long story short, it was moronic policy that not only did not bring in the revenues that were expected, but it cost US jobs. All documented. Mitchell knew this going into the deal. But he got Bush to sign the deal in the name of fiscal prudence, Bush lost his re-election bid on grounds that he broke his pledge to oppose any tax increases ("read my lips") and shortly after Bush was taken out the luxury tax was repealed. The New England boat building industry was crippled for years thereafter but finally came back in the mid 2000s. Anyway, Daddy Bush was in no a Gingrich-Palin-Trump Republican.

History records the Reps took the House in 1994 (and we took the majority in California that year in the State Assembly), on the back of a motley of crew of cretins who eventually impeached Clinton, an action I urged the Republicans not to take but no one listened. They lurched further and further to the right with every election, taking out "RINOs" and replacing them with clowns like Dave Brat, who took out Eric Cantor on grounds that Cantor was too cozy with "the establishment". Like Gingrich, Brat's "scholarship" has been exposed as clownish, barely worthy of even Trump University.

The decisive turn for the worse was in 1994, not in 1980. I'm happy to entertain differences of opinion of whatever, but you gotta get your basic history right before going any further.

Interesting conversation. Really fascinating for me cause I lived that change in the Republican party, and now look at it from an outside perspective and it really is shocking for me, especially the treatment of Obama after such a horrible presidency of Bush. And I will say to Trump´s credit, as the Republican candidate, he has given Bush a well deserved bollocking. I´m quite amazed at some of the stuff he has said.

Anyway, something I can´t believe I´ve failed to mention about the change in the GOP with Reagan, was the crystallisation of years of the "southern strategy" and the massive immigration of democrats, most notably the southern ones, to the Republican party, the ones who definitely were not into civil rights and anti war protesting and general liberal tendencies. This absolutely changed the soul of that party and much of the nasty southern white supremacy gained a big foothold n the GOP. Reagan galvanised it in a big way. No more guilt about Vietnam or Philadelphia, Mississippi and time for American adventurism and dick swinging in a big way. I think this has a lot to say about the reaction to Obama with all the maddening obstructionism and high levels of dog whistling.
 
Last edited:
Yes you can, because voters this cycle have broken along the line of demographics, age and income instead of myopic momentum, so results like this or Nebraska when they also got a very big turn out is not to be scoffed at, especially when it ties into the general trend of Clinton doing very well with primaries in general, not just 'closed'. Also, to conflate her voters with closet centrists is also inaccurate, since she's tied or do better than him with self-identified .'very liberal' voters in some states.

Oregon ran an semi open primary on the Republican side and a closed primary on the Democratic side, but with mail in ballot and online registration deadline 3 weeks before voting, so essentially Sanders got a very big boost from first time voters and independents who got an easy time switching affiliation, not much different to a semi-open setting.



This I agree with, mostly, although with the caveat that it's feasible that the bolded could be the case, especially in a über negative campaign. I just pointed out in the previous post that that's Enten's reasoning, and Jesus knows I had a rant against him months ago for a daft article he wrote about Jim fecking Webb becoming the nominee which mysteriously disappeared. Then again, the point he made, in a roundabout way, is that at this moment Sanders isn't doing better with true independents, which technically is the case. I don't know whether they have editorial control, but apparently he could run with that. Judging from the tone of his Twitter exchanges, he certainly enjoy wumming Bernie Bros.


Polls have to show their sampling so that we can judge their bias (you were doing that to the H2H polls a week ago). We have no idea about the turnout demographics in these polls. Using them is just ridiculous. It's the kind of thing the losing campaign would be doing to show how rigged the system is.

Their secret sauce converts +12 in "semi-open" Oregon to -6 in fully open Washington? To -30 in Iowa, a state they said was great for him? -33 was his defeat margin in Texas ffs. Their results just don't pass a basic smell-test.

And it so happens that his strongest states demographically are also caucus states (and hers are primaries). Last time too she "won the popular vote" vs Obama.


The point he made I believed too when I read the article. I just glossed over the line and assumed in good faith that he meant net ratings.
It's absurd that he didn't consider unfavourables, and completely invalidates that article. Bernie has a 58% approval rating among "true" independents who have decided, with 40% undecided and she has 40% with 15% undecided. The numbers to compare are not the literally meaningless apples-to-oranges 35-34, but 58 v/s 40 or (my terrible home-brewed formula): (+7)*(0.6/0.85) = +4.9 v/s -15. You cannot compare numbers with different denominators. Those numbers (+5, -15) completely invalidate the article. Everything beyond that is his own punditry and (just a tiny bit biased!) prediction of how they break (all against Bernie, disregarding all data from their politically identical peers)
 
Scott Adams appeared on Real Time the other night (yes, I'm aware there's a Bill Maher thread but this belongs in this thread).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...d_trump_will_win_election_in_a_landslide.html

SCOTT ADAMS: I've been studying persuasion for decades and when I saw Trump last summer displaying the tools of persuasion I thought, 'Oh my God, he's not a crazy clown. Everything he's doing, including his complete ignoring of the facts, is persuasion perfection. I called him to be the landslide winner in the general election last year.

Essentially he's basically bringing a flamethrower to a stick fight. There's nobody using the same tools that he's using. So his complete ignoring of facts are actually part of the persuasion because he doesn't give you targets. He doesn't give you details of his policies, usually. So he's reducing the number of targets while making you feel good and focusing on the things he wants. So it's not about facts, it's about focus and attention.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.