[amphibian]

Andorion, on 13 February 2016 - 04:26 AM, said:

Since i have been skimming this thread off and on for a few months, my impression is that gradually everyone is realizing they really don't know what's going to happen

There are pollsters who do know what is happening and who will win.

Every election cycle there are moderate fortunes to be made in running campaigns, getting donor money, getting out the vote, and in polling correctly. I suspect we are in the midst of a big change in who is effective at polling. The big companies and big campaigns get hyper-vicious over polling correctly. They need better data than what Nate Silver/538 gives us, even though he's usually correct enough to predict end results, and they pay for it. The CNN/FOX NEWS phone polling is not predictive. The pundits who are hooked into some polling companies have been made fools of often enough that either they're getting snowed or the companies they're hooked into are off themselves.

This stuff is done at a technical and personal level that's far beyond most people. It's Olympic swimming versus people who are doing a leg of a triathlon in the local lake. We locals don't have access to the amazing swim coaches, the genius-built pools, the dietary regimens, and the genetic gifts to do Olympic swimming. But the metaphorical Olympic people can still be wrong and things can still go sideways because this is POLITICS.

Look at the Dukakis tank photo and see what that thing did to a promising Presidential campaign. http://www.politico....the-tank-099119

[worry]

Briar King, on 13 February 2016 - 04:46 AM, said:

Andorion, on 13 February 2016 - 04:26 AM, said:

Since i have been skimming this thread off and on for a few months, my impression is that gradually everyone is realizing they really don't know what's going to happen

Nope but most hope that SHE doesn't happen in the end... Ugh

What's their reasoning?

[Andorion]

amphibian, on 13 February 2016 - 04:46 AM, said:

Andorion, on 13 February 2016 - 04:26 AM, said:

Since i have been skimming this thread off and on for a few months, my impression is that gradually everyone is realizing they really don't know what's going to happen

There are pollsters who do know what is happening and who will win.

Every election cycle there are moderate fortunes to be made in running campaigns, getting donor money, getting out the vote, and in polling correctly. I suspect we are in the midst of a big change in who is effective at polling. The big companies and big campaigns get hyper-vicious over polling correctly. They need better data than what Nate Silver/538 gives us, even though he's usually correct enough to predict end results, and they pay for it. The CNN/FOX NEWS phone polling is not predictive. The pundits who are hooked into some polling companies have been made fools of often enough that either they're getting snowed or the companies they're hooked into are off themselves.

This stuff is done at a technical and personal level that's far beyond most people. It's Olympic swimming versus people who are doing a leg of a triathlon in the local lake. We locals don't have access to the amazing swim coaches, the genius-built pools, the dietary regimens, and the genetic gifts to do Olympic swimming. But the metaphorical Olympic people can still be wrong and things can still go sideways because this is POLITICS.

Look at the Dukakis tank photo and see what that thing did to a promising Presidential campaign. http://www.politico....the-tank-099119

I get the idea that we simply don;t have all the info and the analytical facilities, but every single news article I have looked at from the beginning was about how Trump would be knocked out easily. It really isn't looking so easy now. Everybody thought Hillary was a guarantee. That boat is being rocked hard.

[amphibian]

Hillary is still kinda a guarantee.

American politics doesn't like non-incumbent frontrunners for long. They almost always shove the competitor up there, even if the competitors are terrible because the country as two non-coherent masses appears to want the frontrunner challenger to the vacant throne to take the best from their competitor's positions. A sort of forced to kill and eat your competitors type dynamic, rather than leave them in the dust.

The surprises are that Sanders has made as much money/inroads as he has and that Trump's campaigning strategy works. Both are using non-traditional models of campaigning that basically could only work today or 150 years ago.

[Terez]

EmperorMagus, on 13 February 2016 - 03:18 AM, said:

I'll admit I'm following the U.S elections circus like a junkie, and it's arguably more fun than porn.

It's basically East Coast Hollywood.

EmperorMagus, on 13 February 2016 - 03:18 AM, said:

I felt like HC's clothing choice in last nights debate was her campaign trying to make her look younger than she is, and thus increase her appeal to young people, but I dunno. I felt like she looked ridiculous.

There is an ongoing discussion about how Hillary's clothing choices get discussed more because she's a woman and people would rather discuss her clothing than her substance. I think there is some truth to this, and perhaps especially in her case because we remember how in '92 Barbara Bush implied that she was a bad wife and mother for being so ambitious in her career and she was expected to bake cookies for a taste test against Barbara's for some ladies' magazine or another. I remember seeing that magazine in the grocery store racks.

I guess when it comes to clothing, women are bound to be more conspicuous than men in general because we're not so uniform. But yeah, yellow. I guess she wanted to stand out. Lots of people said it looked like she was wearing a Star Trek uniform. There were journalists discussing tie knots in the Twitter commentary on the last GOP debate.

amphibian, on 13 February 2016 - 03:20 AM, said:

The non-monolithic nature of the black minority vote is something that's going to be closely looked at in this election. Obama managed to peel off enough to win the primary, but did the Clintons put them back together enough now there is not another black candidate against them? Does Sanders' more fleshed out platform re: race/justice/class pull enough groups over?

I loved TNC's line, about how "black voters deserve to be addressed in all of their beautiful and wonderful complications". Black voters don't often have the luxury of diverging to any great extent in their choice of candidates. In some ways, this election is turning out to be a testament to the power of the Obama presidency.

amphibian, on 13 February 2016 - 03:20 AM, said:

This is probably the most fascinating election cycle in terms of pure demographics and uncertainty that we've seen in 20 years. One of the sub-dramas is how badly the loud conservative political pundits are predicting election turnouts a few days before. They're getting old and they might be hooked into the non-performing poll companies instead of the correctly performing poll companies. I think a sea change in conservative political punditry is about to happen and we'll see idiots like Kristol shuffle off into irrelevance.

We can hope. But people have been expecting him to fall into irrelevance for a decade now. The real fault lines in conservative political punditry are evident in the battle between Trump and Megyn Kelly.

Dumbledude, on 13 February 2016 - 03:49 AM, said:

Terez, on 13 February 2016 - 02:28 AM, said:

Dumbleworrydude wins that one, by the way. I thought Carson would be gone before Iowa.

That's cuz you're thinking rationally. Some of these guys you have to think megalomaniacally.

I try to give people the benefit of the doubt.

Andorion, on 13 February 2016 - 04:26 AM, said:

Since i have been skimming this thread off and on for a few months, my impression is that gradually everyone is realizing they really don't know what's going to happen.

We never have too much certainty in elections; in general we're not fond of inevitability; I think that's especially true in this year of populism. I tried to accept Hillary as inevitable for like a day or two but it just wasn't working for me. If by "everyone" you mean establishment media and those who buy into it a little too credulously, then yeah, the shock waves are amazingly funny to watch. I love following journalists on Twitter; the people who shape public opinion are sometimes quite willing to put their stream of consciousness on display, almost like I do. And I'm kind of a weirdo. I guess journalism attracts lots of ASD types; it's prime entertainment for me.

I loved Nate Silver's article, the Six Stages of Doom. His logic still very much holds up; he just maybe didn't give enough weight to Murphy's Law. The Establishment failure to consolidate behind a favored candidate is making it more likely that Trump will win the nomination outright, but it still looks like we're headed toward a brokered convention. The thing is, if Trump and Cruz dominate the delegates, the RNC would have a real problem if they picked their third place Establishment guy. And they'd rather Trump than Cruz.

amphibian, on 13 February 2016 - 06:33 AM, said:

Hillary is still kinda a guarantee.

I think things are legitimately up in the air right now. We'll know more after Nevada and South Carolina.

[Primateus]

Terez, on 13 February 2016 - 01:31 PM, said:

I guess when it comes to clothing, women are bound to be more conspicuous than men in general because we're not so uniform.

I've never actually thought about it like that. I've just always assumed that the reason was some form of marginalization in order to not consider the substance. And while I think that's still true I see where you're coming from. Men just have to wear a suit, which pretty much has to be outrageously horrible for it to be actually bad. But women in general are judged more on their choice of apparel than men and it can more easily make or break a career, regardless of what actual substance the woman brings to the table.

[Terez]

I am starting to think that Bernie is actually going to win South Carolina. There has been no polling there since before Iowa, but Joy Reid has been reporting on SC for a couple of days on MSNBC, and she wrote up her investigation here:

http://www.msnbc.com...-south-carolina

Reid is a black woman and I have been following her comments on the election long enough to get the feeling she has, at least up to this point, been a pretty strong Hillary supporter. She is one of those (really, most establishment journalists) who did not begin to take Bernie very seriously until after Iowa and New Hampshire. Anyway, this is a really informative article about Bernie's unexpected advantages in South Carolina.

Reid is covering for MHP this morning on MSNBC; she's reporting from a bar/restaurant full of SC voters; they have been doing this for the whole campaign, in Iowa and New Hampshire. She's surrounded by nothing but Bernie supporters, black and white, young and old. Maybe, as Hillary supporters, MSNBC is trying to give Hillary a kick in the rear and encourage her to get her campaign in order, but it might be too late. We'll see. 2 weeks is a very long time in primary season.

Edit: Reid took a minute later in the show to explain that they had talked to both campaigns and told people when MSNBC was going to be at this restaurant, and only Bernie's campaign mobilized people to be there. She noted again that in a ground-game campaign like a state primary, events like these are part of the game, one of those things you have to do. And Hillary's campaign is just not showing the same level of enthusiasm.

This post has been edited by Terez: 13 February 2016 - 04:03 PM

[Andorion]

Terez, on 13 February 2016 - 03:19 PM, said:

I am starting to think that Bernie is actually going to win South Carolina. There has been no polling there since before Iowa, but Joy Reid has been reporting on SC for a couple of days on MSNBC, and she wrote up her investigation here:

http://www.msnbc.com...-south-carolina

Reid is a black woman and I have been following her comments on the election long enough to get the feeling she has, at least up to this point, been a pretty strong Hillary supporter. She is one of those (really, most establishment journalists) who did not begin to take Bernie very seriously until after Iowa and New Hampshire. Anyway, this is a really informative article about Bernie's unexpected advantages in South Carolina.

Reid is covering for MHP this morning on MSNBC; she's reporting from a bar/restaurant full of SC voters; they have been doing this for the whole campaign, in Iowa and New Hampshire. She's surrounded by nothing but Bernie supporters, black and white, young and old. Maybe, as Hillary supporters, MSNBC is trying to give Hillary a kick in the rear and encourage her to get her campaign in order, but it might be too late. We'll see. 2 weeks is a very long time in primary season.

Edit: Reid took a minute later in the show to explain that they had talked to both campaigns and told people when MSNBC was going to be at this restaurant, and only Bernie's campaign mobilized people to be there. She noted again that in a ground-game campaign like a state primary, events like these are part of the game, one of those things you have to do. And Hillary's campaign is just not showing the same level of enthusiasm.

That's interesting. Complacency on the part of Hillary? After NH that really should not be happening.

[Terez]

The mentality was that she lost NH and almost lost Iowa because those states are over 90% white, and that the black and Latino voters in other states would be her "firewall". Bernie was being painted in black journalism as being an out of touch old white guy from a lily-white state, so she never believed she would have to work very hard to win SC, even after NH. That is turning out to be a big error in judgment. South Carolinians remember the racism-tinged campaign she ran against Obama in 2008.

I don't know if I could make an argument for either candidate being better on black issues specifically. Bernie really is out of touch in a lot of ways since he's been representing a white state for so long, but when he talks about economic issues on the House or Senate floor—this stuff is on video—he still talks about these things disproportionately affecting minorities, which is kind of amazing since he wasn't representing very many minority voters in Vermont. He didn't bring it up for political gain. In retrospect, that's very much in his favor.

[Illuyankas]

It's interesting that I've gone from mild concern that Bernie fans won't vote Hillary/at all in the general to actual worry that enough on either side will spitequit and fuck everyone, Sanderistas and Hillary resigned-acceptors alike (Hillary needs a catchy title like that)

Incidentally if you like the concept of black people, gay people and Muslims having rights (at least some, or in fact any) that are kept as law by the Supreme Court despite Republican challenges, please vote in the general even if it's the one you didn't want to win the primary. Cause you don't want Ginsberg replaced by a modern Scalia. I've been reading some of that shit, it ain't pretty.

[Terez]

If it makes you feel any better, the 2008 primary was a lot worse than this one has been so far. People had the same worries then.

[EmperorMagus]

Illuyankas, on 13 February 2016 - 07:03 PM, said:

It's interesting that I've gone from mild concern that Bernie fans won't vote Hillary/at all in the general to actual worry that enough on either side will spitequit and fuck everyone, Sanderistas and Hillary resigned-acceptors alike (Hillary needs a catchy title like that)

Incidentally if you like the concept of black people, gay people and Muslims having rights (at least some, or in fact any) that are kept as law by the Supreme Court despite Republican challenges, please vote in the general even if it's the one you didn't want to win the primary. Cause you don't want Ginsberg replaced by a modern Scalia. I've been reading some of that shit, it ain't pretty.

I disagree.
Going to the ballot is different than voting for somebody. I'd say young people have to get their names crossed off the list, but they should not vote for HC. Get your name crossed off so political parties care about your demographic but don't vote for people like HC because it's essentially positive reinforcement.
They shouldn't try to ram their favourite down people's throat just because they want.

[Illuyankas]

Political parties don't care about young people because young people don't vote. Signify your displeasure through other means if you must but don't not vote at all, did you see how much of the popular vote Romney got? Romney?!

You might not enjoy the feel of having to vote against a worst choice rather than for a best choice, but the yanks are somewhat limited in options.

This post has been edited by Illuyankas: 13 February 2016 - 07:51 PM

[Primateus]

Illuyankas, on 13 February 2016 - 07:49 PM, said:

Political parties don't care about young people because young people don't vote. Signify your displeasure through other means if you must but don't not vote at all, did you see how much of the popular vote Romney got? Romney?!

You might not enjoy the feel of having to vote against a worst choice rather than for a best choice, but the yanks are somewhat limited in options.

Agreed, Hillary might not be a good choice, but however bad she might be, she's still better than any of the republican choices (except maybe Kasich and/or Christie, though he dropped out) And if enough people decide that if they won't vote for hillary if she becomes the nominee because they don't like her you can be sure you'll end up with someone far worse.

This post has been edited by Primateus: 13 February 2016 - 07:59 PM

[EmperorMagus]

Illuyankas, on 13 February 2016 - 07:49 PM, said:

Political parties don't care about young people because young people don't vote. Signify your displeasure through other means if you must but don't not vote at all, did you see how much of the popular vote Romney got? Romney?!

You might not enjoy the feel of having to vote against a worst choice rather than for a best choice, but the yanks are somewhat limited in options.

I said "get your name crossed off" as in go to the polling place but don't write HC's name. Vote for the Green nominee or whoever else.
On principle, I disagree with voting HC because there is absolutely no way she will do anything to change this quagmire for the better. Furthermore, if HC gets voted into office there is absolutely no reason for any of the two parties to change their horrible practices. HC getting elected would be basically " Hey your grassroots orgazination was useless, see ya in 2020!"
If HC loses to Donald, Cruz, or Sanders OTOH, it would be fucking beautiful.

[Illuyankas]

I don't think you've properly considered the ramifications of a US in the grip of a Republican House, Senate and Presidency. Put another way, what did the population of the US earning under a million bucks a year ever do to you?

[amphibian]

EmperorMagus, on 13 February 2016 - 08:07 PM, said:

I said "get your name crossed off" as in go to the polling place but don't write HC's name. Vote for the Green nominee or whoever else.
On principle, I disagree with voting HC because there is absolutely no way she will do anything to change this quagmire for the better. Furthermore, if HC gets voted into office there is absolutely no reason for any of the two parties to change their horrible practices. HC getting elected would be basically " Hey your grassroots orgazination was useless, see ya in 2020!"
If HC loses to Donald, Cruz, or Sanders OTOH, it would be fucking beautiful.

The problem with this idea is that the people who are dissatisfied with the Republican nominees will still vote Republican. They will not vote Green Party. The ones dissatisfied with the Democratic candidates often go to the Green Party (which I am registered for). The demographics of the country right now mean that in a head to head battle, the Democratic presidential candidate can edge out a strong Republican candidate only if just about everyone who would vote Democratic for a good candidate does.

That is why a solidly popular, sitting Democratic President in Obama only got 51.1% of the popular vote vs Romney (47%).

To explain the way Republicans got control of state legislatures and the House of Representatives in Congress would involve looks at gerrymandering and the tough-to-encompass city vs. countryside dynamic.

[worry]

Uhhhhhhhhhh apparently Justice Scalia has passed away:

http://www.mysananto...und-6828930.php

Holy crap.

[Terez]

I guess you're on the Twitters too. I just posted it on Facebook and Theoryland. Usually I go here first for politics, but we have been bitching about Scalia at Theoryland for years, so...

[worry]

Actually just my poli-sci-lovingest FB friend, but same difference. This is like a grenade going off in this election.