US Elections 2016

[Caribou]

Drowsy Emperor-  I think the issue is how results oriented we've become.  Business leaders rarely look past the next fiscal quarter and they only care about results on THEIR watch.  It is all but impossible to get an executive interested in investing in something when the return is years away...why do they care, they'll be on to the next job by then!  I work in IT and I have seen CIO after CIO come in, call his predecessor an idiot, then double down on the same short term, band-aid fixes that more often than not amass even MORE technical debt.  Then they pat themselves on the back, move on to the next role within 2-3 years, and let the next guy worry about the mess.

 

I've even heard executives refer to being SOx compliant as "socialism." 

[ShadySands]

Why can't we have a self respecting marriage of national conservativism and economic socialism? Why can't we have nice things? Why?

 

Sounds to me like it would be supported by the more religious among us but since it doesn't actually seem to be the case I dunno

[Zoraptor]

Clinton has won Mississippi by miles, unsurprisingly, Sanders ahead in Michigan.

 

Stick a fork in Rubio, he's done. Last in both so far and not even a close last.

 

 

Why can't we have a self respecting marriage of national conservativism and economic socialism? Why can't we have nice things? Why?

 

Because, uh, National Socialism has some negative connotations? OK, so NationalSocialisichte Deutsche ArbeiterPartei weren't really socialists by any sensible definition and spent much of their first years killing off anyone was was an actual socialist, but the name has certainly poisoned the well.

 

Realistically, socialism is inherently more 'progressive' than conservative and at least theoretically less inherently nationalist as well. It's not entirely contradictory to have conservative, nationalist, socialism but the two philosophies are far enough apart that most people won't share both to any great degree.

[Calax]

 

I would say that americans don't seem to understand how socialism works. Biggest illusion in socialism is that it would take money from those who have it and give it to those who don't.

No we know how it works. We just like to laugh at stuff.

 

... You do realize some people consider this to be gospel truth right?

 

OLD VERSION

The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and

laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and

plays the summer away.

Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.

The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.

MORAL OF THE OLD STORY:

Be responsible for yourself!

 

 

MODERN VERSION

The ant works hard In the withering heat and the rain all summer long,

building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.

The grasshopper thinks the ant Is a fool and laughs and dances

and plays the summer away.

Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference

and demands to know why the ant should be

allowed to be warm and well fed while he is cold and starving.

CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the

shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant

In his comfortable home with a table filled with food.

America is stunned by the sharp contrast.

How can this be, that in a country of such wealth,

this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?

Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper

and everybody cries when they sing, ‘It’s Not Easy Being Green…’

ACORN stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where

the news stations film the SEIU group singing, We shall overcome.

Then Rev. Jeremiah Wright has the group kneel down to pray

for the grasshopper’s sake, while he damns the ants.

President Obama condems the ant and blames President Bush 43,

President Bush 41, President Reagan, Christopher Columbus,

and the Pope for the grasshopper’s plight.

Nancy Pelosi & Harry Reid exclaim in an interview with Larry King

that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the Grasshopper, and

both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.

Finally, the EEOC drafts The Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act

Retroactive to the beginning of the summer.

The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of

green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes,

his home is confiscated by the Government Green Czar and given to the grasshopper.

The story ends as we see the grasshopper and his free-loading friends

finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house

he is in, which, as you recall, just happens to be the ant’s old house,

crumbles around them because the grasshopper doesn’t maintain it.

The ant has disappeared in the snow, never to be seen again.

The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident, and the house,

now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the

ramshackle, once prosperous and peaceful, neighborhood.

The entire Nation collapses bringing the rest of the free world with it.

MORAL OF THE STORY:

Don’t give in to Obama and Be careful how you vote in 2012!!

[Drowsy Emperor]

Clinton has won Mississippi by miles, unsurprisingly, Sanders ahead in Michigan.

 

Stick a fork in Rubio, he's done. Last in both so far and not even a close last.

 

 

Why can't we have a self respecting marriage of national conservativism and economic socialism? Why can't we have nice things? Why?

 

Because, uh, National Socialism has some negative connotations? OK, so NationalSocialisichte Deutsche ArbeiterPartei weren't really socialists by any sensible definition and spent much of their first years killing off anyone was was an actual socialist, but the name has certainly poisoned the well.

 

Realistically, socialism is inherently more 'progressive' than conservative and at least theoretically less inherently nationalist as well. It's not entirely contradictory to have conservative, nationalist, socialism but the two philosophies are far enough apart that most people won't share both to any great degree.

 

Yet all the various communist and socialist movements during the cold war era were practically synonymous with nationalism, or rather, national liberation. The two were inseparable.

 

But its a moot point. In Europe today, every parliament has almost all political ideologies on paper yet everyone but the odd nationalist party practice the same watered down version of neoliberalism.

 

Drowsy Emperor-  I think the issue is how results oriented we've become.  Business leaders rarely look past the next fiscal quarter and they only care about results on THEIR watch.  It is all but impossible to get an executive interested in investing in something when the return is years away...why do they care, they'll be on to the next job by then!  I work in IT and I have seen CIO after CIO come in, call his predecessor an idiot, then double down on the same short term, band-aid fixes that more often than not amass even MORE technical debt.  Then they pat themselves on the back, move on to the next role within 2-3 years, and let the next guy worry about the mess.

 

I've even heard executives refer to being SOx compliant as "socialism." 

 

Focusing the public on short term issues is much easier for politicians than addressing structural problems. Funny thing is, short term problems can be handled by the relevant state apparatus experts even without politicians, whereas structural problems need political guidance for any progress. 

But then, you can't elect a real leader if you're forced to pick from choices created by business circles that have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo ad infinitum. 

Edited March 9, 2016 by Drowsy Emperor

[Guard Dog]

@Calax: Thanks I hadn't seen that one in a while. There is a grain of truth in it, but the analogy is not all together accurate. Obama wasn't a socialist. If he was any "ist" at all I'd call him a corporatist but that does not fit him well either. What he was, about which there is not dispute to my thinking, is a political leader who posessed no respect. He had no respect or regard for the Constitution of the United States, the limitations of his office, the decorum and leadership his office demands, or the individual rights and liberties of the citizens of the country he was elected to lead. In my book those sins are black enough that no "ist" is required.

[Bartimaeus]

According to fivethirtyeight (the most accurate pollster/aggregate pollster, supposedly?), the previous greatest upset in American primary history was Walter Mondale winning the Democrat NH primary while trailing 17.1 points. Clinton lead Bernie by 21.3 in Michigan. It might not end up mattering in the grand scheme of things, but at least he can stick that feather in his cap, I guess.

 

(e): Well, assuming he actually ends up winning, that is. Detroit doesn't like him very much, it seems.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Tigranes]

Uh, Sanders is leading in Michigan. Oh, right. that's what you're saying. Stupid me.

[Bartimaeus]

Yes.

 

AP (the Associated Press) officially declares Sanders win in Michigan.

Edited March 9, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Leferd]

Extremely bad day for the pollsters. They have to re-evaluate their methodology for Michigan.

 

Nate Silver offers the following:

 

1) Demographics suggested a closer race than polls.

2) Possible Clinton voter complacency.

3) History of bad polling in Michigan.

[ktchong]

Haha, Bernie Sanders won Michigan.

 

**** you, Washington Post.

 

**** you, Jeff Bozo.

 

**** you, Amazon.

 

The Democratic primary race is almost done with the South... and will move out of Hillary's "Firewall" in the South after March 15.  After that, Hillary will start to take a real beating from Bernie, and  I am gonna troll Amazon.com forums and **** on their **** CEO Jeff Bozo until I get banned by Amazon.

Edited March 9, 2016 by ktchong

[Bartimaeus]

There's still Florida to account for, which is a very large amount of delegates, and which he is polling horribly in. Tying (or, in this case, slightly winning) Michigan was very important for him to remain at least sort of viable, but now we're on to the next very frightening milestone, one which, if the rest of the South is any indication, he might very well lose badly. Still, at least there is at least some optimism remaining after today, when it was widely predicted there wouldn't be.

[ktchong]

There's still Florida to account for, which is a very large amount of delegates, and which he is polling horribly in. Tying (or, in this case, slightly winning) Michigan was very important for him to remain at least sort of viable, but now we're on to the next very frightening milestone, one which, if the rest of the South is any indication, he might very well lose badly. Still, at least there is at least some optimism remaining after today, when it was widely predicted there wouldn't be.

 

The South is irrelevant to the Democratic nominee (whoever he/she may be) in the general election.  The red states will go to the Republican, and the Democrat will NOT win any of of them.  Basically Hillary has been winning all the states in the primary that she will NOT win in the general election.  Bernie Sanders are winning mostly the swing (or toss up) states in the primary, and those states are what really matter in the general election.

 

The polls said Bernie would lose by  30+ points to Hillary in Michigan.   So we shall see how Bernie, who is "polling horribly in" Florida, (but not as horribly as in Michigan,) will do in Florida.

 

<snip> (pic removed)

Edited March 9, 2016 by Gorth
No uncensored profanity in pictures please...

[Bartimaeus]

Bernie also polled better in the initial batch of Southern states than he actually ended up doing - another part of why I'm greatly afraid of Florida. And unfortunately, the fact that the South almost certainly won't vote for the Democrats either way has little bearing on the nomination process itself. :/

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

 

Beware the berniesplaining.

Edited March 9, 2016 by KaineParker

[Meshugger]

Michigan becomes a bunch misogynic bros and Hawaii wants a wall built, what a night.

[Bartimaeus]

I'm less upset about Chipman's seemingly perpetually reprehensible behavior and opinions than I am about the fact that some people still care enough about him to take the time out of their day to screenshot the random garbage that comes out of his mouth (or fingers, in this case, I guess). C'mon, we don't need to promote this lunatic.

[Barothmuk]

Hatebrowsing on your lunchbreak is a gentleman's tradition.

[Valsuelm]

I'm less upset about Chipman's seemingly perpetually reprehensible behavior and opinions than I am about the fact that some people still care enough about him to take the time out of their day to screenshot the random garbage that comes out of his mouth (or fingers, in this case, I guess). C'mon, we don't need to promote this lunatic.

 

Twitter is for lunatics...

[Malcador]

Hatebrowsing on your lunchbreak is a gentleman's tradition.

It is better to do before breakfast. Rage is better than caffeine.

[Caribou]

According to fivethirtyeight (the most accurate pollster/aggregate pollster, supposedly?), the previous greatest upset in American primary history was Walter Mondale winning the Democrat NH primary while trailing 17.1 points. Clinton lead Bernie by 21.3 in Michigan. It might not end up mattering in the grand scheme of things, but at least he can stick that feather in his cap, I guess.

 

(e): Well, assuming he actually ends up winning, that is. Detroit doesn't like him very much, it seems.

 

I recall reading somewhere that Michigan law requires polling to be done over land line phones, not mobiles, which if true would certainly skew the numbers a bit as younger folks are less likely to have a land line.

[Raithe]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70iDoDAAfyQ&feature=youtu.be

 

"I can't believe that these are absolutely legitimate jokes to be making about a presidential debate right now,"

[Zoraptor]

 

According to fivethirtyeight (the most accurate pollster/aggregate pollster, supposedly?), the previous greatest upset in American primary history was Walter Mondale winning the Democrat NH primary while trailing 17.1 points. Clinton lead Bernie by 21.3 in Michigan. It might not end up mattering in the grand scheme of things, but at least he can stick that feather in his cap, I guess.

 

(e): Well, assuming he actually ends up winning, that is. Detroit doesn't like him very much, it seems.

 

I recall reading somewhere that Michigan law requires polling to be done over land line phones, not mobiles, which if true would certainly skew the numbers a bit as younger folks are less likely to have a land line.

 

 

I read that as well but it doesn't seem to be true:

 

The total sample of 704 likely voters includes 444 contacted by a live interviewer on a landline telephone and 260 contacted by a live interviewer on a cell phone, in English.

 

 

There may be some wiggle room for it being true (maybe conducting the surveys interstate could avoid such rules, or similar) but that survey at least used cell phones as well as land lines. It was a bit more accurate than other polls from Michigan but was still out by a fair bit more than 10% from the real world result.

[Caribou]

I read that as well but it doesn't seem to be true:

Thanks for digging up the link.  Still 444 via land line vs 260 via mobile is still pretty significant, IMO, considering you are much more likely to get an older person on a cell phone than a younger person on a land line.

[ktchong]

If you have been paying attention to the primary results so far and critically analyzed those results, you would have observed a pattern: Hillary has only been able to win African American/black votes, (and the older women votes in some places, but she seems to be losing older women as well.)  Hillary has lost almost all other demographics to Bernie Sanders: whites, young people including young women, millennials, Hispanics, Arabs/Muslims, independents, etc., and of course, men.  She has not been able to win jack **** outside the black demographics. 

So, Hillary's only strong supporters are African Americans.  Black votes are really the only votes Hillary can get.   Black voters in the South have been  her "firewall" against Bernie Sanders. That is why she has been winning (or, "front-loaded") in the South.   Unfortunately, black votes alone will not be enough to win her the general election.    

P.S. African Americans vote Democrats.  It will not matter if Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders becomes the Democratic presidential nominee.  When the general election comes, African Americans will vote for the Democratic nominee regardless of who she/he will be. Edited March 9, 2016 by ktchong