The US Election 2016, Part V

[Guard Dog]

[Rostere]

A list of which countries have already bribed Clinton:

 

 

So... How do you think Ukrainian interests are looking to cash in on their donations?

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

You've actually made my point for me. In your previous example, with 2 liberal parties and 3 conservative ones, equally split ideologically, you'd always have a liberal and a conservative in the run-off, so no problem.

 

Wrong. With two liberal parties, three conservative parties, and voters equally split ideologically the liberal parties would both get 25% while the conservative parties would get 16,6%, which would result in two liberal parties in the run-off, just like I said. You did finish primary school, right?

 

I meant equally split amongst liberal and conservative as you said. Obviously the parties wouldn't all be equally split, there'd probably be a couple of large parties (one on either side) and a few smaller but still viable parties.

With one run-off election, you would in theory get 3 parties, since if we start out with the current two-party system, you could always safely vote for what at the time looks like the third most popular party without wasting your vote and letting the other side win. Most places with run-off presidential elections I can think of have proportional representation in their parliaments, so that leads to more people initially competing and thus more seemingly viable alternatives (for good or bad, since with only one run-off some are bound to waste their vote).

 

I think to achieve 4-5 parties you will at the very least need MMP or something similar.

With run off election you could safely vote for any party, knowing that either the two bigger parties would be in the run off, or a smaller alternative party would take place of one of them. At least it would be a lot safer than now. There are centripetal and centrifugal forces acting on party size and number, the trick is to balance those to get close to the desired number of parties.

 

 

Please understand that the education system in Texas is very different than the rest of the country.  

 

 

(just kidding.  I think WoD went to school in Eastern Europe anyways.)

I got Magna **** Laude from Rice University, what did you get?

 

*lol*

Edited August 13, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Please understand that the education system in Texas is very different than the rest of the country.

I went to public high school in Texas and can confirm that it was bad.

[Wrath of Dagon]

There was nothing wrong with my school but I went a lot earlier than you did.

[Hurlshort]

 

I got Magna **** Laude from Rice University, what did you get?

 

*lol*

 

 

Let me guess, Communication Arts?  

 

I got my degree out of a Cracker Jack box.  But it came with a cool decoder ring.  

[Calax]

 

 

I got Magna **** Laude from Rice University, what did you get?

 

*lol*

 

 

Let me guess, Communication Arts?  

 

I got my degree out of a Cracker Jack box.  But it came with a cool decoder ring.  

 

Hah! I got my degree in Nude Interpretive Dance from the Kraker Yack box.

[Guard Dog]

I found a dead guy in the dumpster behind Baja Beach Club in Coconut Grove. The degree was in is coat pocket.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I found a dead guy in the dumpster behind Baja Beach Club in Coconut Grove.

 

Something we've all done.

[BruceVC]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/12/politics/clinton-trump-swing-state-polls/index.html

 

Guys more good news, Trump is behind Clinton in critical swing states. These include NC, Florida, Virginia and Colorado 

 

 

Also it is unacceptable that Trump refuses to release his tax returns 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/hillary-clinton-release-tax-returns/index.html

 

Trump claims he cant release his tax returns due to an IRS audit but the IRS has said this is no legal reason for Trump not to release his tax returns .....what is Trump hiding? Why is he so reluctant to release his tax returns. This should be a huge concern for any US citizen ?

[Pidesco]

What he's hiding is one of two things, or probably both. That he's using creative methods to pay less taxes and that he isn't half as rich as he states. Mostly, it's about his own public image, which is, far and away, what he values the most.

 

By the way, did you see the recent one, where Trump was asked what his dad would think about His running for president? He replied, I kid you not, that he was sure his dad would allow it. Talk about daddy issues.

[BruceVC]

What he's hiding is one of two things, or probably both. That he's using creative methods to pay less taxes and that he isn't half as rich as he states. Mostly, it's about his own public image, which is, far and away, what he values the most.

 

By the way, did you see the recent one, where Trump was asked what his dad would think about His running for president? He replied, I kid you not, that he was sure his dad would allow it. Talk about daddy issues.

Nothing surprises me anymore about Trumps comments or general bombast , its hard for Trump  to actually shock or offend me anymore  ...my expectation of what he says is typically  " how low can Trump stoop with his rhetoric " 

 

He says things like "Obama\Clinton are the founders of ISIS " 

 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/trump-obama-isis/index.html

 

And then he claims " I was just being sarcastic "    ...this is the man who wants to be the leader of the most powerful military and economic superpower  in the world   

 

Edited August 13, 2016 by BruceVC

[Meshugger]

As he's been saying in his book from the 80's, the point is to give hyperbole where the media cannot help themselves and giving him free coverage and manipulating the public perception. Right now he is instilling the words 'Obama', 'Hillary' and 'ISIS' into the public conciousness and here we are, talking about it. Thank you Bruce for following suit and spreading it accordingly.

[BruceVC]

As he's been saying in his book from the 80's, the point is to give hyperbole where the media cannot help themselves and giving him free coverage and manipulating the public perception. Right now he is instilling the words 'Obama', 'Hillary' and 'ISIS' into the public conciousness and here we are, talking about it. Thank you Bruce for following suit and spreading it accordingly.

So are you saying its acceptable and normal for any politician to say what they want, promise what they want and publically attack anyone they want but the concept of  political decorum is not a consideration? 

 

So in your analysis there is no such thing as reasonable or accurate political commentary? We must just accept endless hyperbole from the Trump campaign 

[Guard Dog]

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/12/politics/clinton-trump-swing-state-polls/index.html

 

Guys more good news, Trump is behind Clinton in critical swing states. These include NC, Florida, Virginia and Colorado 

 

 

Also it is unacceptable that Trump refuses to release his tax returns 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/hillary-clinton-release-tax-returns/index.html

 

Trump claims he cant release his tax returns due to an IRS audit but the IRS has said this is no legal reason for Trump not to release his tax returns .....what is Trump hiding? Why is he so reluctant to release his tax returns. This should be a huge concern for any US citizen ?

Bruce, don't get too excited. It's only August. In August of 2000 Gore was leading Bush, in 1988 Dukakis was leading the other Bush, Romney & Obama were in a dead heat (the election wasn't that close) and Obama was blowing out McCain (the election ended up being pretty close). We haven't even had the debates yet. A LOT can happen. Especially if Johnson gets in and offers a viable 3rd choice. If Jill Stein gets in (which is looking like a possibility) it's Hodor hold the door after that.

 

After the last debate THEN you can start believing the polls. 

[Guard Dog]

 

As he's been saying in his book from the 80's, the point is to give hyperbole where the media cannot help themselves and giving him free coverage and manipulating the public perception. Right now he is instilling the words 'Obama', 'Hillary' and 'ISIS' into the public conciousness and here we are, talking about it. Thank you Bruce for following suit and spreading it accordingly.

So are you saying its acceptable and normal for any politician to say what they want, promise what they want and publically attack anyone they want but the concept of  political decorum is not a consideration? 

 

So in your analysis there is no such thing as reasonable or accurate political commentary? We must just accept endless hyperbole from the Trump campaign 

 

This is his strategy. Rather than pay for air time he says off the wall stuff that gets the media talking about him in a negative way 24-7. Watch any news network, he is all they are talking about. Then he inoculates himself against the bad effects of it by shouting about media bias (which they created because they ARE biased but that is beside the point) and every time they do it is free air time. They talked so long about Obama being the "founder" of ISIS they practically planted the idea in everyone's head who didn't hear it from Trump himself. And the more networks like CNN insist it isn't true the more people believe it IS true because they don't believe a word the news media says anymore. It is actually a very interesting situation. The major news networks have been ruining their own credibility with the public for 30 years. Now Trump is turning their own hubris against them. The scary thing is it might work. 

Edited August 13, 2016 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

As he's been saying in his book from the 80's, the point is to give hyperbole where the media cannot help themselves and giving him free coverage and manipulating the public perception. Right now he is instilling the words 'Obama', 'Hillary' and 'ISIS' into the public conciousness and here we are, talking about it. Thank you Bruce for following suit and spreading it accordingly.

You beat me to it!

[Malcador]

Trump is the kind of guy you can tie to a chair and kill his kids in front of. Like Rob Ford really. Hm..maybe he'll go the same way.

[BruceVC]

 

 

As he's been saying in his book from the 80's, the point is to give hyperbole where the media cannot help themselves and giving him free coverage and manipulating the public perception. Right now he is instilling the words 'Obama', 'Hillary' and 'ISIS' into the public conciousness and here we are, talking about it. Thank you Bruce for following suit and spreading it accordingly.

So are you saying its acceptable and normal for any politician to say what they want, promise what they want and publically attack anyone they want but the concept of  political decorum is not a consideration? 

 

So in your analysis there is no such thing as reasonable or accurate political commentary? We must just accept endless hyperbole from the Trump campaign 

 

This is his strategy. Rather than pay for air time he says off the wall stuff that gets the media talking about him in a negative way 24-7. Watch any news network, he is all they are talking about. Then he inoculates himself against the bad effects of it by shouting about media bias (which they created because they ARE biased but that is beside the point) and every time they do it is free air time. They talked so long about Obama being the "founder" of ISIS they practically planted the idea in everyone's head who didn't hear it from Trump himself. And the more networks like CNN insist it isn't true the more people believe it IS true because they don't believe a word the news media says anymore. It is actually a very interesting situation. The major news networks have been ruining their own credibility with the public for 30 years. Now Trump is turning their own hubris against them. The scary thing is it might work. 

 

I hear you but if this was his expected outcome why are most Trump supporters saying the media is biased agasint Trump as if this is a bad thing?

 

 

Are you saying the objective of the Trump campaign is to get media to be against Trump so they can indeed say  " the media is biased" ?

[redneckdevil]

Because if the media wasn't biased, then trump wouldn't be talked about anywhere near what he is talked about right now.

Since he's talked about ALOT (free publicity), people see what and how he's being judged then see a difference with others. When people see things someone says or do blown up and talked constantly, then find out thru other means (social media etc) that someone else is doing and saying ****, but there's a different tone and actions (if any) from the same media that supposed to be unbiasee. So yes when he does something bad and starts blasting him, since it's very visible that someone else isn't getting the same treatment when they do something bad, people start thinking that the wrong the one who's getting blasted for isn't as bad as it seems because it's very visible there's a different treatment going on.

 

The news when on the subject of politics or racism have sunk to the levels of tabloids. Because the media isn't giving the same treatment to Hillary makes people disbelieve what could be truth 100% or just not care, because why should they believe or care about what the news say when they are very visibly having a biased opinion and goal?

Edited August 13, 2016 by redneckdevil

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

As he's been saying in his book from the 80's, the point is to give hyperbole where the media cannot help themselves and giving him free coverage and manipulating the public perception. Right now he is instilling the words 'Obama', 'Hillary' and 'ISIS' into the public conciousness and here we are, talking about it. Thank you Bruce for following suit and spreading it accordingly.

So are you saying its acceptable and normal for any politician to say what they want, promise what they want and publically attack anyone they want but the concept of  political decorum is not a consideration? 

 

So in your analysis there is no such thing as reasonable or accurate political commentary? We must just accept endless hyperbole from the Trump campaign 

 

This is his strategy. Rather than pay for air time he says off the wall stuff that gets the media talking about him in a negative way 24-7. Watch any news network, he is all they are talking about. Then he inoculates himself against the bad effects of it by shouting about media bias (which they created because they ARE biased but that is beside the point) and every time they do it is free air time. They talked so long about Obama being the "founder" of ISIS they practically planted the idea in everyone's head who didn't hear it from Trump himself. And the more networks like CNN insist it isn't true the more people believe it IS true because they don't believe a word the news media says anymore. It is actually a very interesting situation. The major news networks have been ruining their own credibility with the public for 30 years. Now Trump is turning their own hubris against them. The scary thing is it might work. 

 

I hear you but if this was his expected outcome why are most Trump supporters saying the media is biased agasint Trump as if this is a bad thing?

 

 

Are you saying the objective of the Trump campaign is to get media to be against Trump so they can indeed say  " the media is biased" ?

 

One of the objectives yes. That the media is biased towards the Democrats is just a universally accepted fact in this country. Trump is the first one to try to use that to his advantage though. 

 

As for his supporters, most folks will drink the kool-aid if you pour it for them.

[Meshugger]

 

As he's been saying in his book from the 80's, the point is to give hyperbole where the media cannot help themselves and giving him free coverage and manipulating the public perception. Right now he is instilling the words 'Obama', 'Hillary' and 'ISIS' into the public conciousness and here we are, talking about it. Thank you Bruce for following suit and spreading it accordingly.

So are you saying its acceptable and normal for any politician to say what they want, promise what they want and publically attack anyone they want but the concept of  political decorum is not a consideration? 

 

So in your analysis there is no such thing as reasonable or accurate political commentary? We must just accept endless hyperbole from the Trump campaign 

 

 

It's completely up to the media. For example, the guy had an 1 hour conference in Detroit highlighting his economic policies down to tax deduction for having your kids in kindergarden the other day but that went on pretty much unreported. If the media and the twitter-whores would've ignored what he says on social media or in real life and sticked to the issues and policies we might've had a completely different election.

 

Your, or any other expert's, whimsical musings about what is acceptable or decorum has no influence what so ever.

[Guard Dog]

That is a good point. His speech in Detroit was substantive and devoid of any controversy and the media didn't cover a word of it. If this truly is his strategy they are enabling it with their own shoddy reporting and he is playing them like a harp. 

[BruceVC]

 

 

As he's been saying in his book from the 80's, the point is to give hyperbole where the media cannot help themselves and giving him free coverage and manipulating the public perception. Right now he is instilling the words 'Obama', 'Hillary' and 'ISIS' into the public conciousness and here we are, talking about it. Thank you Bruce for following suit and spreading it accordingly.

So are you saying its acceptable and normal for any politician to say what they want, promise what they want and publically attack anyone they want but the concept of  political decorum is not a consideration? 

 

So in your analysis there is no such thing as reasonable or accurate political commentary? We must just accept endless hyperbole from the Trump campaign 

 

 

It's completely up to the media. For example, the guy had an 1 hour conference in Detroit highlighting his economic policies down to tax deduction for having your kids in kindergarden the other day but that went on pretty much unreported. If the media and the twitter-whores would've ignored what he says on social media or in real life and sticked to the issues and policies we might've had a completely different election.

 

Your, or any other expert's, whimsical musings about what is acceptable or decorum has no influence what so ever.

 

Your argument is inconsistent and doesn't reflect the reality of how Trump expects the media to respond

 

His economic policies were discussed by many commentators, the perceived outcome of what he says he can achieve through some of his ideas like the tax breaks he plans to implement are subjective

 

Many economists have many questions about the sustainability of Trumps economic views, look at Moodys views 

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/maggiemcgrath/2016/07/29/moodys-where-trumps-economic-policies-might-spark-recession-clintons-could-boost-gdp-and-lower-unemployment/#dc57cf1234808

 

https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/2016-06-17-Trumps-Economic-Policies.pdf

 

 

But if Trump wants the media to focus just on his economic views which should be relevant than he should stop saying things that cause the media to focus on his divisive comments

[Leferd]

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/12/politics/clinton-trump-swing-state-polls/index.html

 

Guys more good news, Trump is behind Clinton in critical swing states. These include NC, Florida, Virginia and Colorado 

 

 

Also it is unacceptable that Trump refuses to release his tax returns 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/11/politics/hillary-clinton-release-tax-returns/index.html

 

Trump claims he cant release his tax returns due to an IRS audit but the IRS has said this is no legal reason for Trump not to release his tax returns .....what is Trump hiding? Why is he so reluctant to release his tax returns. This should be a huge concern for any US citizen ?

Bruce, don't get too excited. It's only August. In August of 2000 Gore was leading Bush, in 1988 Dukakis was leading the other Bush, Romney & Obama were in a dead heat (the election wasn't that close) and Obama was blowing out McCain (the election ended up being pretty close). We haven't even had the debates yet. A LOT can happen. Especially if Johnson gets in and offers a viable 3rd choice. If Jill Stein gets in (which is looking like a possibility) it's Hodor hold the door after that.

 

After the last debate THEN you can start believing the polls. 

 

 

GD, where are you getting your polling and voting information?

• In 2008, Obama had 52.9% of the popular vote to McCain's 45.7%. On 8/7/08, FiveThirthyEight gave Obama a 63.8% chance of victory. https://web.archive.org/web/20080807174038/http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/ 
• in 2012 it was Obama 51.0% to Romney's 47.1%. On 8/13/12, FiveThirtyEight had Obama as the 71.6% favorite to win. https://web.archive.org/web/20120813072907/http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/
• Gore was leading Bush in August 2000 and he did you know...win the popular vote. 

As for Dukakis/Bush...yes Dukakis dropped his lead over Bush but well....he had an incompetent campaign and the sitting President was extremely popular and GHWB was essentially running for a third term. Really good retrospective on the 1988 Dukakis meltdown:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGu848znQpc

 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/film-how-to-destroy-a-presidential-candidate/

 

As of today, Clinton is given a 77% chance of victory. http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo#plus

 

Current battleground states projections: