True, that was a shambles also.
The Trump Presidency | Biden Inaugurated
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
- Status
True, that was a shambles also.
clinton says she champions women's rights yet takes millions of dollars from countries with some of the worst women's rights in the world. (i.e. saudi arabia, qatar)
I don't see how this issue almost never came to be discussed here. I'm not a pol-sci major or anything so I'm definitely missing something.
yeah there's a limit to how much crap Ivanka can take
People are aware of it but the Caf in general felt that Clinton was the lesser of 2 evils so it was mainly Trump who was scrutinized.
I doubt that people simply lied to pollsters. Pollsters probably polled the wrong people and as Raoul said: The result is totally in line with the 538 predictions and their assessment. The results the states is also highly correlated; so if one goes wrong, the odds that others go wrong as well, increase. It shows that Nate Silver is a data driven journalists, while many other are not. All the models that predicted 90%+ for a Clinton win, had probably horrible design flaws.
My point is, that the problem aren’t pollsters alone. People cherry-picked the results that they liked. Laughing about Trump was just more fun.
You're absolutely spot on. It was discussed here but everytime is was shot down as pro-Trump rhetroic.
As mentioned in other threads where this was discussed. The only fix in a two party system is to do what Sanders did last year. Join one of the two parties, create a populist movement where the party you join adopts some of your policies, then use the power structure of the party to advance your ideas in a Presidential campaign. If a 74 year old man can come out of nowhere and do it, then anyone can. Running for pointless fringe third party positions only prevents a better candidate from getting into office. We have now seen this happen 3 times in the past quarter century.
As usual someone else is to be blamed but the dem candidate.
Johnson polled much more than Stein anyway. And his vote bank is as likely to vote for Trump as Hillary.
I guess the Latino communities in America are only watching over their backs. I guess, that is a rationale explanation as those who are legal immigrants would reap more of this decision than helping their brothers out who are undocumented. I would not think latinos could be so strategical, but I guess everyone is becoming an expert in Sun Tzu philosophy.
Women is also a mystery to me. In particular with a women running against him...I would think that she would understand their issue moreso than a man who has belittle them with his words and even actions.
The trouble is you'll also get another Sanders situation where the DNC will do all it can to hinder you while clearly favouring their establishment choice.
Sanders was doomed the second he ran on the Democrat ticket considering his opponent was the darling pick.
In Germany, the Russian immigrants that came in the 90's vote AfD. It doesn't take much to forget where you came from ...
Please tell me more about it. You really seem to know your stuff, while I am just an uneducated peasant.
It was the same in the UK. A lot of minorities and immigrants voted Brexit because they disliked the idea of European workers competing with them for low income jobs.
It is very likely the some of them would have not voted at all, given they probably did not like Hillary or Trump. So without an alternative, they might have just not bothered.
So, basically, everyone but Silver wasn't scientific?
Of course not in the same way the americans do. Not even close. But I'll try too explain (in Norwenglish) how it's still similar in a way.
The scandinavian countries (at least Norway and Sweden) are often led by multiple parties in a coalition.
This means that multiple parties have a chance to get their say on issues that matter the most to them, as well as actually choosing ministers for certain offices.
So right now, a moderate conservative party (Høyre) is cooperating with a christian party (KRF - large focus on christian values, though not part of the government), as well as the closest we can get to a party with anti-immigration values and focus on lowering taxes (FRP).
In an election, most of them are by themselves marginal (H = 27% (second biggest party in Norway), FRP = 16%, KRF = 5% and V = 5%). Add them together, with each party having their say, and you have a bad mix on your hands.. You can have ministers from parties that 84% of the population do not want. How is that for a bad system.
Scandinavia is not perfect. There is a lot to fix here as well. But we're yet to elect a clown, so we've got that going for us.
That is because she is a politician, double faced, manipulative, and willing to compromise and use other tricks. The problem is here is why is this so shocking? You would be hard pressed to find an American president who wasn't involved in some sort of scandal, war crimes or similar other episodes that show the very exact same traits. That's how politics and politicians have worked forever, why are people now getting so shocked and offended that a politician is less than straight forward? Were they just naïve all along or is it plain sexism as in when a man displays those traits, it is viewed as "shrewd" and "cunning" but when it is her, it is so vile and disgusting that it is even worse than that orange buffoon? Maybe I am wrong but I refuse THAT many Americans are genuinely shocked or offended that a politician can be less than straight forward. There are those who believe stupider things though so what do I know.
The DNC situation was a one off involving a particular personality (DWS) who was in the tank with another candidate. A vast majority of previous Democratic or Republican chairs would've gone along with the candidate with the most support - just as Priebus rather unconventionally proved this time with Trump.
Yeah. I did not agree with Nader voter blaming but at least the logic was sound then since all Nader voters would have more than likely voted for Gore. But Libertarians are generally a vote bank for GOP so it is likely that Johnson took away much more votes from Trump.
That's the sad thing. Americas popularity took a huge jump and now it'll go down too.
I'll just repeat it again. Women in general don't care about Trump's misogyny as much as you'd think they do. I genuinely feel the Caf in general thinks too highly of women. Plenty will want to be in Melania's shoes now, just be pretty and end up being first lady. Not only that, they'll also likely vote what their husband voted.
Then the Democrats will lose again, Clinton lost because she was an establishment candidate in a populist election.
China is building infrastructures in Africa like no other country has ever before.
And that itself is a problem and only highlights why the US needs a third party grassroots movement to free themselves for the mercy of tanks, lobbyists and big money in general.
Dunno to be honest, after spending years in law school and also playing poker very fanatically (spent nearly two years of my life grinding it out at low and mid stake PLO, for example), normally I would say the law, politics and making bets are subjects I'm more than just a little familiar with. The end result, after all those years and hours of effort and experience, is around 300 euro profit. Now I can't really say that's a particularly impressive return of investment
Liverpool is a great bet by the way, definitely a win/win situation. My money before the season started was on Chelsea, but I considered Liverpool for exactly the same reason I decided to go for Chelsea, which is the massive edge they could gain from not having to play in Europe. Liverpool had their coach settled in, which is helpful compared to Conte arriving after the Euro's. But I felt that Chelsea would have more individual quality in their squad to compensate for that. Truth be told I've got no clue who'll win this year, any pick out of the top teams could be good.
Maybe we should ask the White House for Trump's view on this matter after he's inaugurated, after today's results I'm pretty sure he's an incarnation of some kind of oracle, so surely he could pick out the premiership winner without even knowing what sport he's talking about.
Isn't that what Sanders proved was entirely possible this time ? In that case, why waste ones time mucking about in fringe 3rd parties that will never see the light of day beyond simply disrupting the chances of one of the two major parties to be successful.
All pollsters or poll aggregators ignored the +3/-3 error margin or general uncertainty surrounding the polls. 538 paid most heed to it. Sam Wang for example will not be taken seriously for quite some time.
I know a few ladies who couldn't care less about Trumps misogyny. They prioritize their disdain for the establishment ahead of that.
Well if Trump turns out to be the disaster people expect him to be the next candidate might have a slightly easier job.
Also it's hard to think of anyone really who would be as much an "establishment" candidate as Clinton.
Billy Bush named Communications Director.
Possible but ultimately futile given the circumstances.
The Dems seem keen to blame everyone but themselves, so it seems unlikely they'll heed the lessons from this and continue shoving their establishment choices down your throats.
Sorry bud...
It's hard to say they're worthless as they'd been right about US politics consistently beforehand. But clearly, there was a variable somewhere along the line that completely defied expectations, in this case it seems to have been an enormous surge in rural/ex-urban white working class support for him. Nationally, the polls were off by about 3 points, which isn't unheard off, but state polls in places where non-college white voters were a majority (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania) were off by more like 6 or 7 points.
That said, the signs that this was happening were there in places in like Ohio (at least in most polls) and Iowa, but they were kind of put in their own box rather than viewed as part of a broader trend. I suppose that suggests that our own political bias infects how we look at races like this, even when trying to view it objectively. Didn't want to believe it could happen, so didn't. Feck.
Thanks for the explanation. Cheers! The last part is something I am so tired of hearing about how it is not perfect. I am not sure if the phrase some perspective is needed has ever been more relevant. By every measurable criteria life in the West and especially in Scandinavia is better than anywhere else or has ever been for average citizens. Yes the past few years has witnessed some problems but the reaction is ridiculously disproportionate. I understand that people usually see things from their point view strictly and that when their own life standards drop, it genuinely feels like their life sucks regardless of how stupid that is from a wider perspective but this is going too far now. People are acting as desperate and angry as they did after wars!
I understand that's not what you meant, I was more responding to that general feeling that I think is driving this surge of nationalistic movements.
Just watched a recent Obama interview... What a massive step down.
Dust has settled a bit and I just hope he's been putting on a show for his supporters (and doesn't believe half the shit he said, nor will try to proceed with it). I hope his huge ego means he values leaving a decent legacy.
I’d need to look at their models and I am not really interested enough in the matter to do that. When social scientists come up with unusual high probabilities for an event, it is usually down to the fact that they suck at understanding statistics. It is a common theme in almost all fields of social science. I frequently rant about this - both in this forum and in conferences/meetings with my peers - , but somehow only very few people seem to be bothered by that.
Jeez how many Bushes there are? They are like the Freys in GOT
there's always a danger in viewing a demographic group as some sort of monolith that will all move together in one direction. Sometimes that amount that swim against the stream are very small, but other times not so much.
When talking Latino or Hispanic voters, within the definitions of those groups you have people who come from different places and have a different world view. There is also a dislike among some Hispanic/Latino (not always interchangeable depending on the definition you use) groups for each other, but even this is a generalization and should not be taken to mean everyone feels this way.
- Status