The US Election 2016, Part IX

[Namutree]

 

In 1990, during the first surge of political correctness in America, I gained a new perspective on the issue after making two trips to what was then still the Soviet Union. On one occasion at a dinner party, an educated professional in his thirties calmly told me, apropos of demands for independence in the republics of Central Asia, that “all those Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Tadjiks and so forth need to be ruled by the iron fist of the white man, just like your Negroes.” Having gotten used to American norms after a decade of living in the United States, I wouldn’t have been more stunned if he had casually unzipped his pants and urinated on the floor.

See everyone, we need at least some PC. Imagine an America where people who think this; say it. You're not supposed to talk about how negroes need to be ruled by the white man's iron fist. It could make people uncomfortable when the negro's need to be ruled by the white man is talked about so plainly. If only that guy had found a more polite way to say it, then there'd be no problem.

 

I think the real issue is the guy's ideas regarding race dynamics; not the fact he didn't use a pc way of expressing it. Guess the author and I see things differently.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Namutree

[Longknife]

 

 

In 1990, during the first surge of political correctness in America, I gained a new perspective on the issue after making two trips to what was then still the Soviet Union. On one occasion at a dinner party, an educated professional in his thirties calmly told me, apropos of demands for independence in the republics of Central Asia, that “all those Uzbeks, Kazakhs, Tadjiks and so forth need to be ruled by the iron fist of the white man, just like your Negroes.” Having gotten used to American norms after a decade of living in the United States, I wouldn’t have been more stunned if he had casually unzipped his pants and urinated on the floor.

See everyone, we need at least some PC. Imagine an America where people who think this; say it.

 

 

...Good? It allows the idiots to announce themselves so you know who to keep your distance from. Agree with your sarcastic remark completely.

 

I've got a story of my own: in High School, I was in the AP classes. I didn't really have many friends in these classes because the way the town worked, the richer families all pushed for their kids to be in the AP classes, pushed them to befriend each other and pushed them to go for positions like Student Council, etc. I was in AP classes by teacher request, but apparently parents could request it and push for it aswell, and that meant the richer kids were always in them simply because their parents understood the value of such a thing. Sucked cause it meant I was amongst kids that had been forcefed to each other as friends since they were like 6, with limited others not being in the giant clique of a class. There were probably only 3-4 people per class that weren't in it. This will sound racist, but yes, typically African American communities in the USA are less educated, so obviously the percent of them within AP courses was quite low, simply because their parents rarely stressed for them to learn nor pushed for further success. Initially we had four total visiting AP classes, but by my senior year, only two black kids total were in AP classes because the other two just didn't care enough to continue and preferred easier courses. In my Calculus class, neither of those two remaining were present. More on that later...

 

 During Black History Month there was an assembly and a dance that was to be organized by the black students only instead of Student Council. This sparked a petition from some kids saying this was unjust, because why should unelected students get a free dance and assembly to organize as they see fit, all just because of race? They had other arguments such as what of our latino students, but you get the point. In principle I agreed with their sentiment. Mind you Student Council wasn't exactly qualified cause it was the same preppy crowd whose parents had taught them they could pool their votes just right to elect each other, but in principle, people should earn their qualifications, no?

 

When I was approached to sign that petition, despite agreeing with what was on paper, I didn't sign. The people asking me to sign just gave me a bad vibe and rubbed me the wrong way. Can't describe it because they never said anything overtly racist or offensive. They never even came close to that and were pretty normal. I guess my only tip-off was why were they THAT passionate about this that they made a petition. After all, even if I agree in principle, the black kids might enjoy the chance and why rain on their parade...? Wasn't like the petition would accomplish anything anyways.

 

After the assembly and the dance happened (which were infinitely more entertaining than anything Student Council ever did), I'll never forget a certain conversation that sparked in my Calculus class that had zero black students:

 

"How was the dance?"

"It was alright."

"Yeah, it was ok, but what it really needed was some good ole-fashioned COUNTRY!"

"Yeah, I didn't like the music, but you know they wouldn't play country because certain people would complain."

"You mean 'the Nigers?'"

"Ah yes...'the Nigers'..."

 

I was like "LOLWTF???" Out of nowhere a huge chunk of my Calculus class was exposing itself as casually racist, and the teacher wasn't even batting an eye. I looked around to see if anyone looked as shocked as me, couldn't find anyone. None of those people had given me any indication in the past that they had any sort of racist tendencies, yet there I was. Suddenly had a much stronger opinion about the petition, suddenly my opinion of that town sunk even lower. Should also mention that the neighborhood I lived in had it's own racist nickname that was never openly stated, simply cause it had the most black residence. Everything north of the town's train tracks was considered "N____ville" by plenty of people in the rest of the town, and while that was a clear announcement the town had plenty of racists, I never expected I'd hear such remarks from people who otherwise weren't in any way overtly racist on a normal day.

 

Any day of the week, I would prefer these idiots get a chance to announce themselves. Shaming someone from saying something racist does not solve the problem of racism, it masks it. Such a practice serves the interests of the town by hiding it's blemishes and bad sides to make it seem nicer, but it doesn't actually address the issue at it's core.

 

In that same light, I've met people that were openly hostile about my disability. Had a bus driver here where I live now once...I get in on crutches during a time I was waiting on a new prosthetic, this guy waits for me to go aaaaaall the way to the back, then refuses to pull out into I come to the front to show him my bus pass, something I was told they shouldn't actually do since that isn't their job. I go forward, show it, and as I'm walking back he pulls out rather suddenly so that I lost balance and fell. He then yells to me to stop being dramatic while others gasp in shock. And yeah, I was actually hurt; hurt to walk for the next two weeks or so as I'd somehow "jammed" my hip in the fall. Nothing discriminatory was ever said, but the attitude...? I don't know why he's that way, but it was clear to me and my gut that he has something against the disabled. (which honestly is rare and kinda weird imo) Had he just said something hateful and said "get that idiot waste-of-a-human disabled guy to come up and show his pass," I think all that would've led to is more support from the other people on the bus as well as helped to avoid that situation entirely, and he STILL would've been punished by the bus station itself. Better, no?

 

And for people sensitive about being called names...? Honestly, grow thicker skin. The idea that others should correct themselves is naive and denies evidence that bigotry has existed since the dawn of time, and it misses an opportunity for YOU to grow as a person by being able to tolerate such commentary without your day being ruined. The few times I've had someone try to get under my skin about my disability, I've laughed. It's so pathetic, it's so petty, and it's basically a way for them to announce their hate or jealousy (most cases involved a time someone was upset with a position I achieved or recognition I got) in one of the most tactless ways possible, openly inviting others to think less of them. It's like watching someone dig their own grave, so I mean it when I say I laugh. So long as time itself has existed, so has bigotry. Trying to censor it will not work, and as such, you do yourself a favor by growing thicker skin. Simple as that.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Longknife

[Meshugger]

Emphases mine.

 

The article rightly points out is that classical liberals have been against PC-culture as they were the first to be affected by it as they share the same university and college campus with the SJWs. However as many have noticed, the failure of the classical liberals to curb PC culture, partly i think because their own liberal principles are used again them, and now the next natural progression has been Trump who is simply an atheist to PC ideals. If he fails, then expect the pendelum to crash in their faces even harder.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

I've got a story of my own: in High School, I was in the AP classes. I didn't really have many friends in these classes because the way the town worked, the richer families all pushed for their kids to be in the AP classes, pushed them to befriend each other and pushed them to go for positions like Student Council, etc. I was in AP classes by teacher request, but apparently parents could request it and push for it aswell, and that meant the richer kids were always in them simply because their parents understood the value of such a thing. Sucked cause it meant I was amongst kids that had been forcefed to each other as friends since they were like 6, with limited others not being in the giant clique of a class. There were probably only 3-4 people per class that weren't in it. This will sound racist, but yes, typically African American communities in the USA are less educated, so obviously the percent of them within AP courses was quite low, simply because their parents rarely stressed for them to learn nor pushed for further success. Initially we had four total visiting AP classes, but by my senior year, only two black kids total were in AP classes because the other two just didn't care enough to continue and preferred easier courses. In my Calculus class, neither of those two remaining were present. More on that later...

 

 During Black History Month there was an assembly and a dance that was to be organized by the black students only instead of Student Council. This sparked a petition from some kids saying this was unjust, because why should unelected students get a free dance and assembly to organize as they see fit, all just because of race? They had other arguments such as what of our latino students, but you get the point. In principle I agreed with their sentiment. Mind you Student Council wasn't exactly qualified cause it was the same preppy crowd whose parents had taught them they could pool their votes just right to elect each other, but in principle, people should earn their qualifications, no?

 

When I was approached to sign that petition, despite agreeing with what was on paper, I didn't sign. The people asking me to sign just gave me a bad vibe and rubbed me the wrong way. Can't describe it because they never said anything overtly racist or offensive. They never even came close to that and were pretty normal. I guess my only tip-off was why were they THAT passionate about this that they made a petition. After all, even if I agree in principle, the black kids might enjoy the chance and why rain on their parade...? Wasn't like the petition would accomplish anything anyways.

 

After the assembly and the dance happened (which were infinitely more entertaining than anything Student Council ever did), I'll never forget a certain conversation that sparked in my Calculus class that had zero black students:

 

"How was the dance?"

"It was alright."

"Yeah, it was ok, but what it really needed was some good ole-fashioned COUNTRY!"

"Yeah, I didn't like the music, but you know they wouldn't play country because certain people would complain."

"You mean 'the Nigers?'"

"Ah yes...'the Nigers'..."

 

I was like "LOLWTF???" Out of nowhere a huge chunk of my Calculus class was exposing itself as casually racist, and the teacher wasn't even batting an eye. I looked around to see if anyone looked as shocked as me, couldn't find anyone. None of those people had given me any indication in the past that they had any sort of racist tendencies, yet there I was. Suddenly had a much stronger opinion about the petition, suddenly my opinion of that town sunk even lower. Should also mention that the neighborhood I lived in had it's own racist nickname that was never openly stated, simply cause it had the most black residence. Everything north of the town's train tracks was considered "N____ville" by plenty of people in the rest of the town, and while that was a clear announcement the town had plenty of racists, I never expected I'd hear such remarks from people who otherwise weren't in any way overtly racist on a normal day.

 

Any day of the week, I would prefer these idiots get a chance to announce themselves. Shaming someone from saying something racist does not solve the problem of racism, it masks it. Such a practice serves the interests of the town by hiding it's blemishes and bad sides to make it seem nicer, but it doesn't actually address the issue at it's core.

 

 

 

Your naivete is adorable, but I don't think it works that way. We all know how nice it was to be a black person at the time when the expressed sentiments were mainstream.

[Longknife]

Your naivete is adorable, but I don't think it works that way. We all know how nice it was to be a black person at the time when the expressed sentiments were mainstream.

 

So you are suggesting that because the black people within that town of mine do not have to hear the N-word, they're infinitely better off? No, they are still subjected to racist treatment, whether they say those words or not changes nothing. A friend of mine that still lives there had to go to the mayor himself because he was getting pulled over nonstop by cops due to racial profiling: he's 6'8" and black. The mayor had to basically tell the police department he was hands-off because he had been getting pulled over 9 times per month. Several other friends all got arrested because they were openly provoked by a guy spouting the N-word until they broke his jaw. The town was very quick to glance over evidence the guy was a known white surpremacist and multiple people stated he did indeed provoke the fight out of the blue (even walked up to them for no reason), yet my friends are the ones that did time. Yes, if they had thicker skin and if this word was heard regularly, perhaps it would not spark such emotion that they essentially get baited into an assault charge. That's not blaming the victims, that's reality. No, the town should not be so prejudice that they show clear bias towards the white supremacist, but if it's going to be that way, yes, it is in their best interest to act in such a way that keeps them out of trouble. Fight against the prejudice, but until that's taken care of, yes, be concious of your environment. It's difficult to be concious of said environment if half the town is hiding their prejudices, and while being aware of those prejudices is by no means a great feeling, it does prepare you better.

 

I am not saying make it culturally acceptable or legal to spout hate speech, but I am saying that simply shaming people for saying such words unfortunately misses the point. It trains a mentality where people hide their racism instead of overtly showing it. About the only level of naivete in my arguments is that creating an atmosphere where bigotry is frowned upon and yet does not censor itself is a rather difficult-if-not-impossible goal to achieve, but to focus on simply censoring such words...? That's missing the point entirely.

 

Quite frankly, do you ever make arguments? Any time I see you post, it's just a snarky one-liner about how people who don't agree with you are so wrong, but you never expand on your position. Do me a favor and come down from your high horse to enlighten me to my flaws.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

Your naivete is adorable, but I don't think it works that way. We all know how nice it was to be a black person at the time when the expressed sentiments were mainstream.

 

So you are suggesting that because the black people within that town of mine do not have to hear the N-word, they're infinitely better off?

 

 

I'm suggesting that while racial profiling and provoking people into fights are pretty disgusting, at least they're not getting lynched. Progress!

 

I am not saying make it culturally acceptable or legal to spout hate speech, but I am saying that simply shaming people for saying such words unfortunately misses the point. It trains a mentality where people hide their racism instead of overtly showing it. About the only level of naivete in my arguments is that creating an atmosphere where bigotry is frowned upon and yet does not censor itself is a rather difficult-if-not-impossible goal to achieve, but to focus on simply censoring such words...? That's missing the point entirely.

So apparently the forum software at my post and I'm too lazy to type that wall of text up again. TLDR: people aren't purposefully censoring racist speech as an end unto itself, they're censoring racist sentiment, of which racist speech is a symptom. Creating an atmosphere where bigotry is frowned upon and yet does not censor itself is only possible if you're unwilling to sanction bigotry in all but its most egregious forms, otherwise bigots will wisen up to the fact that open bigotry gets them punished and learn to hide it.

Edited November 8, 2016 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Longknife]

 

 

Your naivete is adorable, but I don't think it works that way. We all know how nice it was to be a black person at the time when the expressed sentiments were mainstream.

 

So you are suggesting that because the black people within that town of mine do not have to hear the N-word, they're infinitely better off?

 

 

I'm suggesting that while racial profiling and provoking people into fights are pretty disgusting, at least they're not getting lynched. Progress!

 

I am not saying make it culturally acceptable or legal to spout hate speech, but I am saying that simply shaming people for saying such words unfortunately misses the point. It trains a mentality where people hide their racism instead of overtly showing it. About the only level of naivete in my arguments is that creating an atmosphere where bigotry is frowned upon and yet does not censor itself is a rather difficult-if-not-impossible goal to achieve, but to focus on simply censoring such words...? That's missing the point entirely.

So apparently the forum software at my post and I'm too lazy to type that wall of text up again. TLDR: people aren't purposefully censoring racist speech as an end unto itself, they're censoring racist sentiment, of which racist speech is a symptom. Creating an atmosphere where bigotry is frowned upon and yet does not censor itself is only possible if you're unwilling to sanction bigotry in all but its most egregious forms, otherwise bigots will wisen up to the fact that open bigotry gets them punished and learn to hide it.

 

 

I'm not clear on if we're on the same page or not (not sure I understood), but I will say this and try to rephrase my point thusly: I do not just see an issue of bigotry, I see an issue of hate, and hate can come from all kinds of people, both victims and aggressors. It's a part of human nature, whether we like to admit it or not.

 

Great example:

 

 

The video, if anyone wants a tl;dw, is a homeless woman who was protecting the Trump star after it was defaced. She has signs that you can possibly make out from the video, but more or less she criticizes black america for trusting democrats, saying they need to wake up and stop being idiots.(her words) This sparks aggression from people who perceive bigotry in this, and you can see the result. They're bullying a homeless woman, going through her belongings, tearing up her signs, and the woman (the big one) at the end get rather physical. A white guy even attempts to calm the crowd, and you can hear two members of the crowd dismiss his statement simply because he's white. "Hilariously," this video was initially uploaded by one of the bulliers, who has since deleted their youtube channel once they realized they weren't being championed as a hero, but rather frowned upon for stupidity. It was initially three vids and I had the pleasure of catching them on the original guy's channel, so if there's choppy jumps in this vid linked, that's why.

 

My point, and the lesson I would take away from this video, is that addressing the issue is a balance. If you attempt to censor racist speech, unfortunately it would seem people turn into this: they feel justified in vigilante justice, much like my jailed friends and much like this crowd. You can inadvertently cause an opposite extreme where people feel it's okay to treat bigots hatefully. (in that vid I'm not even sure she's a bigot, but you get the idea) You might take the lesson that the uploader has learned his lesson via being shamed, all the negative commentary and the downvotes his videos got (or any harassment if that came), but I would highlight I know of no official apologies for this incident and again, for as awful as it was, no people should not shame him beyond telling him why he screwed up.

 

However, something I should've touched on better is that I currently feel the USA is in a position in time where yes, we need to cool it on censoring hate speech. I would not make this same recommendation 60 years ago, because at that time, the hate speech would've been the majority, would feed upon itself and grow. Today? Today I'm afraid I know of several cases where bigotry is seen as a license to be an **** for the victim. Did you know the Hugh Mungus lady for example is currently asking for donations to help her cope with the "sexual harassment" she received from that guy and from others since then? She's defaming him daily even though he did nothing. That and cases like it will sadly continue unless we cool it and we go back to teaching people that yes, hate speech and bigotry happen, but you have to be able to face it. The world today is far too eager to cling to a victim mentality, but this just creates the EXACT same issue of hate with different circumstances.

 

In the same exact fashion that Muslim countries flip their lid and can hardly control themselves if they see a naked woman whereas countries where nudity isn't frowned upon are much less likely to be set off by it, I think exposure to hate speech can be "healthy" as it teaches people to face it calmly and rationally.

 

Lastly, I am a firm believer that bigotry is the result of ignorance and stupidity, and that if you wish to combat it in any way, you need to do that via discussion. I am a firm believer that discussion is one of the most powerful tools humanity has to solve problems, and if you truly believe racism and other forms of bigotry are wrong (they are), then you should be capable of showing it via discussion. Not every person will listen, but yes you can mitigate the problem and reduce it by allowing for discussion. We cannot do this if our solution as society is to shame these people rather than to try and teach them.

 

There was once a time when me, being the fantastic retard I am, approached a transgender person to confess my own bigotry towards the transgender community. The jist of it is I saw a transgender operation as a desire to deny reality and escape from it, whereas my stance is that you must face it and acknowledge it to move forward. I do not think I would do myself any favors for example if I spent my days dreaming of having two legs, and instead I can accomplish alot by accepting who I am, even finding that I gain unique insights others don't have by doing so, and that itself holds value. For those reasons (alongside some of the first transgender people I met being psychos and narcissists) I was at odds with the transgender community, but didn't like feeling prejudice towards them. Felt wrong in some way or like I wasn't understanding a person that stands on the absolute opposite end of a spectrum from me, and I wanted to change that. It may sound like a stupid plan to simply confront a transgender person, say "hi I'm bigoted towards you lol wanna talk about it," but it actually worked out and we walked away with mutual respect for one another, and I do feel I've gained better understanding of the issue just from that.

 

I do not want to live in a world where instead of my happy ending to my real experience, I was shouted down by a mob of people for even admitting transphobia, with people physically pushing me, harassing me over social media or attempting to have that bigotry affect my life functionally. I want to live in one where people do feel a level of disgust from bigotry, but recognize that only through tolerance and respect - even for bigots who may lack respect for others - is the only way forward and the only way to truly change bigotry.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Longknife

[BruceVC]

 

 

Your naivete is adorable, but I don't think it works that way. We all know how nice it was to be a black person at the time when the expressed sentiments were mainstream.

 

So you are suggesting that because the black people within that town of mine do not have to hear the N-word, they're infinitely better off?

 

 

I'm suggesting that while racial profiling and provoking people into fights are pretty disgusting, at least they're not getting lynched. Progress!

 

I am not saying make it culturally acceptable or legal to spout hate speech, but I am saying that simply shaming people for saying such words unfortunately misses the point. It trains a mentality where people hide their racism instead of overtly showing it. About the only level of naivete in my arguments is that creating an atmosphere where bigotry is frowned upon and yet does not censor itself is a rather difficult-if-not-impossible goal to achieve, but to focus on simply censoring such words...? That's missing the point entirely.

So apparently the forum software at my post and I'm too lazy to type that wall of text up again. TLDR: people aren't purposefully censoring racist speech as an end unto itself, they're censoring racist sentiment, of which racist speech is a symptom. Creating an atmosphere where bigotry is frowned upon and yet does not censor itself is only possible if you're unwilling to sanction bigotry in all but its most egregious forms, otherwise bigots will wisen up to the fact that open bigotry gets them punished and learn to hide it.

 

LK to be fair to alum his one liners do often make sense, he uses brevity but it contains wisdom

 

Yes maybe his point at times  is unclear but I do believe a person can make a valid point without a long post 

[Malcador]

No lynching as progress, it's like the desperate optimism of end of year reviews at work

 

Might be interesting to see racists get a soft touch, but negative reinforcement works wonders.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Malcador

[ktchong]

Obama defeated McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 due to superior ground game and, most important, the superior technology behind his ground game.  The DNC had the superior information technology that indexed, profiled and identified Democratic voters, so ground troops could find and drag those voters to polling stations.    It has been almost ten years since Obama revolutionalized DNC's ground game, yet the RNC still has not caught up in term of ground game technology.  So the RNC is about ten years behind DNC in terms of ground game and its technology.
 

After today, the RNC will be twenty years behind DNC in voters information technology.

What the DNC has here is really cutting edge.  In the past, we did not know the result until after the election, so it was impossible to reverse the outcome of any district.  Today, the DNC begins using a new and improved voter information system.  The new system continuously updates and monitors results in every district, in real-time, based on continuous exit polling.  When the system detects or predicts Hillary is falling behind in a particular district, the system will immediately raise an alert. The system immediately runs through the list of registered Democratic voters in that district, and dials and calls them, to find "available leads".  At the same time, the system  redirects the ground volunteers/troops to that district, to go knock on doors and/or pick up confirmed leads, and drag the leads to polling stations.  If multiple nearby districts are at risk at once, then the system calculates the priorities of those  districts based on how they will affect overall election outcome.  This technology will crush Donald Trump, who has zero ground game to speak of.

As far as I know, the RNC does not have anything that is even remotely close to what the DNC has. The current system the RNC has is not even on par with what Obama used back in 2008. That is price Republicans pay for being a bunch of anti-math/science turds. That anti-math/science mentality has retarded Republicans, made them slow to adapt and update to new technology. But hey, maybe Jesus can help those morons  overcome math, science and technology.

Edited November 8, 2016 by ktchong

[redneckdevil]

I get what LK is talking about. There are 2 sides of the same problem, both are taken to extremes by both sides. So when we have freedom of speech, what is the best course of action? To deny the freedom or to allow it? If u deny it, then where do u draw the line? If u allow it, how should u deal with it and how and how much should we allow to be able to effect?

I agree with LK in that off the job and in personal life, allow to be open about it. I was taught from a very young age that instead of denying, u just stay away and don't deal with it. When it becomes an attack that someone can't get away from or cannot stand up for themselves, u intervene if it's worth it to you.

On the job (business, political, etc) u can't be open with it like LK says because then it has a much higher chance of effecting someone's personals life. It no longer is what I personal think and u can think a different way if u want to because of our freedoms, but people of opposing views can use that view over someone else because of hierarchy of power.

 

Like Trumps obsession with Muslims viewed in a terrible light is bad, BUT isn't Obama's view of Muslims where the word Muslim was deleted from all records of 9/11 and other areas is ALSO bad even though it would seem he trying to be "PC" about it.

 

When u deny something enough from people long enough, something/someone will try to break thru IF u don't maintain a balance. If people are being manipulated, even for the greater good or their own, people will rebel even if it's for a worse situation. That is why I believe Trump has been able to rise to power, because so far balance has been used with a nail bat to bash anyone who doesn't agree/believe in their opinion/view.

Edited November 8, 2016 by redneckdevil

[Leferd]

FiveThirtyEight's Forecast.

 

 

Control for the Senate is a virtual dead heat 50/50 tossup.

[Guard Dog]

Obama defeated McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 due to superior ground game and, most important, the superior technology behind his ground game.  The DNC had the superior information technology that indexed, profiled and identified Democratic voters, so ground troops could find and drag those voters to polling stations.    It has been almost ten years since Obama revolutionalized DNC's ground game, yet the RNC still has not caught up in term of ground game technology.  So the RNC is about ten years behind DNC in terms of ground game and its technology.

 

After today, the RNC will be twenty years behind DNC in voters information technology.

 

What the DNC has here is really cutting edge.  In the past, we did not know the result until after the election, so it was impossible to reverse the outcome of any district.  Today, the DNC begins using a new and improved voter information system.  The new system continuously updates and monitors results in every district, in real-time, based on continuous exit polling.  When the system detects or predicts Hillary is falling behind in a particular district, the system will immediately raise an alert. The system immediately runs through the list of registered Democratic voters in that district, and dials and calls them, to find "available leads".  At the same time, the system  redirects the ground volunteers/troops to that district, to go knock on doors and/or pick up confirmed leads, and drag the leads to polling stations.  If multiple nearby districts are at risk at once, then the system calculates the priorities of those  districts based on how they will affect overall election outcome.  This technology will crush Donald Trump, who has zero ground game to speak of.

 

As far as I know, the RNC does not have anything that is even remotely close to what the DNC has. The current system the RNC has is not even on par with what Obama used back in 2008. That is price Republicans pay for being a bunch of anti-math/science turds. That anti-math/science mentality has retarded Republicans, made them slow to adapt and update to new technology. But hey, maybe Jesus can help those morons  overcome math, science and technology.

Nah, you know who has a good ground game? The Dallas Cowboys. They are leading the league in yards per game, yards per attempt, rushing first downs and rushing touchdowns. They are second in total yards and third in average per attempt. Now THAT is a ground game.

 

Ahhh I'm so glad we can stop worry about who is going to spend the US into insolvency and get back to talking about more pleasant things!

[Guard Dog]

FiveThirtyEight's Forecast.

 

 

Control for the Senate is a virtual dead heat 50/50 tossup.

If Clinton wins, Republicans control both houses and Johnson gets 5%, I'd take that.

[BruceVC]

 

FiveThirtyEight's Forecast.

 

 

Control for the Senate is a virtual dead heat 50/50 tossup.

If Clinton wins, Republicans control both houses and Johnson gets 5%, I'd take that.

 

So if that happens what would that mean? Does that mean the Republicans can block any rule or law Clinton tries to pass?

[Malcador]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/304867-coulter-trump-would-win-if-only-people-whose-grandparents-born

 

Ah Coulter, has to be playing a game, not sure what the point is, but a game nonetheless.

[BruceVC]

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/304867-coulter-trump-would-win-if-only-people-whose-grandparents-born

 

Ah Coulter, has to be playing a game, not sure what the point is, but a game nonetheless.

That women is a disgrace to gender equality, I have heard her view several times

 

I can understand any women in this election blindly following Trump because they focus on other issues but a women actually justifying his contempt for them is something I will never understanding 

[Meshugger]

Well, the election is drawing to its end. It's been a fun ride posting this and that and too bad that is has to end already. 

[BruceVC]

Well, the election is drawing to its end. It's been a fun ride posting this and that and too bad that is has to end already. 

You cant be serious? Arent you tired of all the invective and grandstanding ?

[Namutree]

Well, the election is drawing to its end. It's been a fun ride posting this and that and too bad that is has to end already. 

It's been going on too long IMO.

[BruceVC]

 

Well, the election is drawing to its end. It's been a fun ride posting this and that and too bad that is has to end already. 

It's been going on too long IMO.

 

Far too long....its been an amazing experience but Im glad its over 

[Longknife]

Obama defeated McCain in 2008 and Romney in 2012 due to superior ground game and, most important, the superior technology behind his ground game.  The DNC had the superior information technology that indexed, profiled and identified Democratic voters, so ground troops could find and drag those voters to polling stations.    It has been almost ten years since Obama revolutionalized DNC's ground game, yet the RNC still has not caught up in term of ground game technology.  So the RNC is about ten years behind DNC in terms of ground game and its technology.

 

After today, the RNC will be twenty years behind DNC in voters information technology.

 

What the DNC has here is really cutting edge.  In the past, we did not know the result until after the election, so it was impossible to reverse the outcome of any district.  Today, the DNC begins using a new and improved voter information system.  The new system continuously updates and monitors results in every district, in real-time, based on continuous exit polling.  When the system detects or predicts Hillary is falling behind in a particular district, the system will immediately raise an alert. The system immediately runs through the list of registered Democratic voters in that district, and dials and calls them, to find "available leads".  At the same time, the system  redirects the ground volunteers/troops to that district, to go knock on doors and/or pick up confirmed leads, and drag the leads to polling stations.  If multiple nearby districts are at risk at once, then the system calculates the priorities of those  districts based on how they will affect overall election outcome.  This technology will crush Donald Trump, who has zero ground game to speak of.

 

As far as I know, the RNC does not have anything that is even remotely close to what the DNC has. The current system the RNC has is not even on par with what Obama used back in 2008. That is price Republicans pay for being a bunch of anti-math/science turds. That anti-math/science mentality has retarded Republicans, made them slow to adapt and update to new technology. But hey, maybe Jesus can help those morons  overcome math, science and technology.

 

Some other interesting factors I've seen discussed are that Obama of course benefited greatly from the black vote and the millenial vote. Hillary cannot really expect the same. No one likes to admit it, but of course there's idiots out there who voted for Obama because he's black. People don't like to say it because it makes black voters sound dumb, but nah, ALL voters can be dumb, and the black vote is no exception. Some truly did vote because the candidate was black too and for no other reason. Now that reason is missing, so will they vote...?

 

Millenials are likewise very tech savvy, and are far less likely to fall for the blatant propaganda that's been trying to pass itself as mainstream media simply because they can find the real news on the net whenever they please. If anything, the millenial vote is probably the most likely to be offended by Hillary.

 

Another interesting point is that I've seen projections predicting Ohio will go to Trump. However, there's apparently one county in particular in Ohio that's absolutely pivotal as it houses a huge chunk of the population. Given that, I honestly think that makes it easier to rig that county, which I would absolutely expect of Hillary.

 

And speaking of media propaganda, what effect will that have? Will angered voters cast their ballot for Trump in protest of the corruption? Will Trump voters buy into the media narrative and stay home believing it to be a lost cause? Will Clinton supporters go out in bulk because they feel more justified in their vote thanks to the media?

 

 

My #1 lament looking at this election is that there's sooooooooo many factors that it doesn't let us figure out which factors were and weren't pivotal with absolute certainty. It's such a cluster**** of variables that even after the result, some questions will remain. That's aggrivating as hell for me cause I'm really curious to know which factors will prove most important today.

Edited November 8, 2016 by Longknife

[Meshugger]

 

Well, the election is drawing to its end. It's been a fun ride posting this and that and too bad that is has to end already. 

You cant be serious? Arent you tired of all the invective and grandstanding ?

 

 

Low energy detected.

 

On the contrary, this election has been full of vitality and entertainment. But like everything fun, it has to end, sadly.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

If Clinton wins, Republicans control both houses and Johnson gets 5%, I'd take that.

 

So if that happens what would that mean? Does that mean the Republicans can block any rule or law Clinton tries to pass?

 

Technically yes but she could also block anything they tried to do. At worst it becomes a total stalemate like it did for Obama. He ran absolutely roughshod over them for the two years the Democrats had full control. The Republicans were cut out of everything in a way that is unusual even in DC. It was made worse when that worthless bag of s--t Harry Reid changed the Senate Rules on cloture votes and essentially took away the filibuster. After that is was Democrat rule by fiat and some really, really bad things happened. Then the Democrats lost the House of Representatives in in 2010 and the Senate in 2014. Because Obama had treated them so poorly and was still overtly hostile to them the Republicans  were not inclined to compromise with him on much. And to tell the truth he had no inclination to work with them either so the whole government ground to a near halt.

 

A budgetary spending resolution still got passed. The essential tasks of the Government  were still accomplished. But very little in the way of legislation moved. Which s fine by me. I'd take that every time over what was going on prior to 2010.

 

Now with a new President and a new Congress the dynamic will be different. If Hillary Clinton is elected and is willing to sign bills she may not like in order to get Congress to pass ones she does she can probably expect to get 50-75% or her agenda through. That hard left and hard right bills will still be stopped. A radical leftist Supreme court nominee (Another Ginsburg or Kagan) would be stopped. So to answer your question it really comes down to how Congress reacts to how the treats them. If she puts their backs up she is in for a long frustrating four years. I say four because historically the mid-term elections favor the opposite party of the Executive. If the Democrats don't have control of the Senate by the end of the night they will not have it until at least 2020. The House is probably a lost cause for them for the foreseeable future.

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

If Clinton wins, Republicans control both houses and Johnson gets 5%, I'd take that.

 

So if that happens what would that mean? Does that mean the Republicans can block any rule or law Clinton tries to pass?

 

Technically yes but she could also block anything they tried to do. At worst it becomes a total stalemate like it did for Obama. He ran absolutely roughshod over them for the two years the Democrats had full control. The Republicans were cut out of everything in a way that is unusual even in DC. It was made worse when that worthless bag of s--t Harry Reid changed the Senate Rules on cloture votes and essentially took away the filibuster. After that is was Democrat rule by fiat and some really, really bad things happened. Then the Democrats lost the House of Representatives in in 2010 and the Senate in 2014. Because Obama had treated them so poorly and was still overtly hostile to them the Republicans  were not inclined to compromise with him on much. And to tell the truth he had no inclination to work with them either so the whole government ground to a near halt.

 

A budgetary spending resolution still got passed. The essential tasks of the Government  were still accomplished. But very little in the way of legislation moved. Which s fine by me. I'd take that every time over what was going on prior to 2010.

 

Now with a new President and a new Congress the dynamic will be different. If Hillary Clinton is elected and is willing to sign bills she may not like in order to get Congress to pass ones she does she can probably expect to get 50-75% or her agenda through. That hard left and hard right bills will still be stopped. A radical leftist Supreme court nominee (Another Ginsburg or Kagan) would be stopped. So to answer your question it really comes down to how Congress reacts to how the treats them. If she puts their backs up she is in for a long frustrating four years. I say four because historically the mid-term elections favor the opposite party of the Executive. If the Democrats don't have control of the Senate by the end of the night they will not have it until at least 2020. The House is probably a lost cause for them for the foreseeable future.

 

This is a  very interesting post. But it concerns  me in the sense you could have this really frustrating stalemate and most US  citizens are sick of the impotence and lack of consensus in Congress, things seem to take a long time to get done 

 

So if I was her I would not try to implement  the very ideological controversial things like gun control and focus on fixing things where there can be agreement like Obamacare and improving aspects of foreign policy