|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 30 2016 21:45 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Ron Paul put similar bills up. Good idea if you ask me. TRUMP UP BY 4 IN LATEST RASMUSSEN POLLS http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watchShow nested quote +The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 43% of the vote, while Clinton earns 39%. Twelve percent (12%) still like another candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Last week at this time, it was Clinton 44%, Trump 39%. This is Trump’s highest level of support in Rasmussen Reports’ matchups with Clinton since last October. His support has been hovering around the 40% mark since April, but it remains to be seen whether he’s just having a good week or this actually represents a real move forward among voters.
Trump now earns 75% support among his fellow Republicans and picks up 14% of the Democratic vote. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Democrats like Clinton, as do 10% of GOP voters. Both candidates face a sizable number of potential defections because of unhappiness with them in their own parties.
Trump made a major speech on jobs and trade on Tuesday that even the New York Times characterized as “perhaps the most forceful case he has made for the crux of his candidacy …. that the days of globalism have passed and that a new approach is necessary.” Some also speculate that last week’s vote in Great Britain to leave the European Union signals a rise of economic nationalism that is good for Trump. Despite the media panic and market swings that have resulted, Americans are not particularly worried that the “Brexit” will hurt them in the pocketbook.
Meanwhile a Fox News poll from the same time period puts Clinton at +6, a Reuters poll puts her at +10, and PPP at +4. And Rasmussen has historically consistently put Trump and Republicans ahead even when almost every other pollster wasn't. I wouldn't put too much stock on it or you're going to fall down the Romney rabbit hole.
|
On June 30 2016 11:37 SK.Testie wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 10:56 zlefin wrote:
testie -> also, on the self-hating gay issue; that wasn't obfuscation by the administratoin; that was people trying to figure out what was happening in the immediate aftermath, before we had good information. It wasn't clear at the time, it became clear later. It's why I tend to advocate for reserving judgment until we have more info and have done investigations. Yes, it's annoying that some people continue to believe an incorrect version because they only heard parts of the initial story and not the followup later, but that's not on the administration. No. It was clearly an attempt at obfuscation and political points by the left. What other reason is there to force that clearly false narrative when on the very first night the report was, "there were calls that he claimed to be a soldier of Allah for ISIS!" While I agree he had no connection to ISIS it's clear where his ideology lay. Show nested quote +as to your loss of trust/opaqueness points; that's more a result of confirmation bias + politics causing some people ot have a continuously negative view of him. The republicans will attack obama whatever he does, that's just sadly how politics works sometimes; at least until we find a way to get rid of politicians. I've been open to listening to Obama fairly for most of his 8 years and still think I give him an honest shake. I applaud him when he's right and on point and condemn him when he's wrong. I know that he's not above lying that's for sure. Show nested quote +PS I consider DoD and other studies on counterterrorism and counterinsurgency strategies to be a better source than your opinion that it's a good or bad strategy to use. What I'm saying is it still isn't going to quell the anger of people who see the colour blue, and when they're told "that's not blue you moranz!" they're going to have an instinctive and very real anger. And then they'll lose trust and have division within your own people. Once that trust is lost, it's hard to gain back.. if it can be gained back. So while it may have a net benefit in fighting terrorism, it has a net loss of trust on your own populace. And that sentiment will fester and I don't think that's healthy for more people to lose trust in your president/government.
Well, I guess we just disagree. To my mind, an attack can have multiple motives, and at the time, it wasn't clear how much aech of them mattered. He did clearly pledge allegiance to ISIS; but when people do lone wolf attacks, figuring out how much of their actual motivations came from various sources takes some time.
I'd say it's more like they're being told "we're not calling that blue for strategic reasons X,Y, and Z"
Loss of trust is a serious concern; but I do wonder how many of the people complaining about this issue are ones who mostly hate on obama whatever he does (and there certainly are such people, unsurprising in a highly partisan political environment), and hence woudln't have trust in any case.
At any rate, I'm only good at being right, I'm not good at convincing people or dealing with trust issues. so if we're discussing things other than correctness i'm not so useful.
|
On June 30 2016 22:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 21:45 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Ron Paul put similar bills up. Good idea if you ask me. TRUMP UP BY 4 IN LATEST RASMUSSEN POLLS http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watchThe latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 43% of the vote, while Clinton earns 39%. Twelve percent (12%) still like another candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Last week at this time, it was Clinton 44%, Trump 39%. This is Trump’s highest level of support in Rasmussen Reports’ matchups with Clinton since last October. His support has been hovering around the 40% mark since April, but it remains to be seen whether he’s just having a good week or this actually represents a real move forward among voters.
Trump now earns 75% support among his fellow Republicans and picks up 14% of the Democratic vote. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Democrats like Clinton, as do 10% of GOP voters. Both candidates face a sizable number of potential defections because of unhappiness with them in their own parties.
Trump made a major speech on jobs and trade on Tuesday that even the New York Times characterized as “perhaps the most forceful case he has made for the crux of his candidacy …. that the days of globalism have passed and that a new approach is necessary.” Some also speculate that last week’s vote in Great Britain to leave the European Union signals a rise of economic nationalism that is good for Trump. Despite the media panic and market swings that have resulted, Americans are not particularly worried that the “Brexit” will hurt them in the pocketbook. Meanwhile a Fox News poll from the same time period puts Clinton at +6, a Reuters poll puts her at +10, and PPP at +4. And Rasmussen has historically consistently put Trump and Republicans ahead even when almost every other pollster wasn't. I wouldn't put too much stock on it or you're going to fall down the Romney rabbit hole.
Rasmussen, home of President Romney
Let's ignore the polling averages and the 538 election forecast
Meanwhile, here's this gem about Trump by Trump being statistically tied... in Georgia.
|
If Rasmussen has Trump at +4, this is a done deal. President Hilary Rodham Clinton.
|
On June 30 2016 14:50 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 14:00 Danglars wrote:
...
I won't be watching this thread every ten minutes so you'll have to wait a bit if you have more Aquanim.
... I think I've made my point already... until you're willing to engage with the fact that the US government's approach to terrorism, ISIS, etc. is based on analysis and the expertise of the FBI, CIA, et al., rather than some "leftist" agenda of Obama et al., there is no productive conversation to be had here. (EDIT: I am not the person in this thread with the best positioning and knowledge to have that conversation in the first place. Nevertheless, a conversation about whether the FBI and CIA are correct in their assessment might be productive. A conversation based on you having the belief that this policy is rooted in "leftist, silly, duplicitous and childish" thinking is a complete waste of time.)
Listen, if you want to clip out the entire quote and harp on the conclusions, you've already tossed out making any points and are too partisan to have any productive conversations on this issue. You assert "dodging" when you haven't heard back in ten minutes ffs. I'm not going to repeat wholesale everything ClutZ said, I quote and add. If you chalk it all up to belief and snip-quote, you haven't acknowledged the argument or signaled your intent to engage on any level. Right-of-center posters have repeatedly torn down "but analysis and expertise" and if you have something by way of countering argument, let it out. From the form of your response, it appears you want to leave all replies to terrorism to the experts, free of critics that aren't at employed by relevant federal agencies.
|
Most arguments are sound arguments are backed up by evidence, rather than personal belief and desire for something to be true. This would not be the first time that the gut response to blame a nebulous, mercurial and ethereal agent like “Racial Islam” or “communism” is not the best route to addressing the problem.
But if you are set on continuing with the discussion based on personal understanding of the subject, just being each post with “I really feel that” and it should be ok.
|
On June 30 2016 12:33 oBlade wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Sam Harris had some interesting things to say about this. The administration's response, focusing on guns, would have no application in any other context (for example, a bombing, like the Boston marathon attack, or an airplane hijacking). We've now got Boston, Charlie Hebdo, Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino, Orlando, plus failed attacks in Texas and on the train in Belgium; this is a bad pattern. Now, if talking about Islamic terrorism were something that caused terrorists to multiply, that in itself would be a fucking alarming proposition warranting further discussion. We're constantly told Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam - if that's true, then we should be able to talk about the former without this silly worry, for the benefit of all members of our species. These questions are either uncomfortable or controversial, which is why the US left wants to sweep them under the rug. Or they can't turn the ship around, too. + Show Spoiler +Like the president missed the point here. He thinks, or he's representing, basically that the right wants people to talk about radical Islam because talking about it is a quick fix. That's not it at all, people want to talk about problems in the open so we can understand them, then move to fix them, rather than pretend everything's fine. But now I'm being told that not talking about the problem, or having leaders who don't openly address it, is a viable strategy...?  though its efficacy remains doubtful. However, only when there's an attack against civilization, apparently, does this strategy apply - it's fine to tout your supposed achievements drone striking someone in Yemen in a State of the Union speech, for example. If this were about magically saving lives by not "jinxing" more terrorism into existence by talking about it, the president should be able to look the American people (figuratively) in the face and present that case, rather than just being patronizing and dismissing it like it's just the other side of the aisle throwing a fit. To me, it's transparent: people in power don't want to accept criticism on how they handle this issue, so they insist that talking about it makes us less safe, and they also don't want to actually do things, or rather take chances, because that could also invite criticism, and therefore not be politically expedient. On no other issue would anyone for a moment buy this. Rising heroin abuse? Let's all just pretend everything's hunky-dory, because saying the word "heroin" might cause further addiction as people start to hear about heroin and decide to try it who wouldn't have been exposed otherwise, but oh, I can still brag about sending a helicopter full of highly trained people wearing uniforms to rescue someone who was overdosing once and fly him to the hospital in just 40 minutes.
That Sam Harris video gave me hope that rationality still exists in the world.
|
On June 30 2016 22:51 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 22:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 30 2016 21:45 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Ron Paul put similar bills up. Good idea if you ask me. TRUMP UP BY 4 IN LATEST RASMUSSEN POLLS http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watchThe latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 43% of the vote, while Clinton earns 39%. Twelve percent (12%) still like another candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Last week at this time, it was Clinton 44%, Trump 39%. This is Trump’s highest level of support in Rasmussen Reports’ matchups with Clinton since last October. His support has been hovering around the 40% mark since April, but it remains to be seen whether he’s just having a good week or this actually represents a real move forward among voters.
Trump now earns 75% support among his fellow Republicans and picks up 14% of the Democratic vote. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Democrats like Clinton, as do 10% of GOP voters. Both candidates face a sizable number of potential defections because of unhappiness with them in their own parties.
Trump made a major speech on jobs and trade on Tuesday that even the New York Times characterized as “perhaps the most forceful case he has made for the crux of his candidacy …. that the days of globalism have passed and that a new approach is necessary.” Some also speculate that last week’s vote in Great Britain to leave the European Union signals a rise of economic nationalism that is good for Trump. Despite the media panic and market swings that have resulted, Americans are not particularly worried that the “Brexit” will hurt them in the pocketbook. Meanwhile a Fox News poll from the same time period puts Clinton at +6, a Reuters poll puts her at +10, and PPP at +4. And Rasmussen has historically consistently put Trump and Republicans ahead even when almost every other pollster wasn't. I wouldn't put too much stock on it or you're going to fall down the Romney rabbit hole. Rasmussen, home of President Romney Let's ignore the polling averages and the 538 election forecastMeanwhile, here's this gem about Trump by Trump being statistically tied... in Georgia. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/731959001143988229
Hillary almost never leads Trump in any Georgia polls, it's not a state that's in much danger for him. The 538 forecast gets some things right, but also has subtle fudging going on, even if it's not deliberate. Polling right now isn't really representative of people turning out for Johnson in November, they're just answering Johnson in polls instead of undecided or abstain because his name is an option. Most people probably know nothing about him and haven't been exposed to him, yet in some of these states they're using polls that put him as high as 10-15%. The actual cap for a third party candidate's popular vote should be more like 3%, which is what Nader got in 2000 - we can even be generous and go up to 5%. Jill Stein did a third as well as GJ in 2012 (which means she got a third of a percent). But she's not in the model - that's a red flag. Ross Perot had to go through enormous effort to get his vote share. Now, it's not impossible that GJ could have a better performance, but it's a long shot.
|
^They'll see Johnson's name on the ballot too. I don't see why it's necessarily the case that Johnson's poll numbers are inaccurate just because he's a third party.
|
On July 01 2016 02:40 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 22:51 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 30 2016 22:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 30 2016 21:45 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Ron Paul put similar bills up. Good idea if you ask me. TRUMP UP BY 4 IN LATEST RASMUSSEN POLLS http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watchThe latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 43% of the vote, while Clinton earns 39%. Twelve percent (12%) still like another candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Last week at this time, it was Clinton 44%, Trump 39%. This is Trump’s highest level of support in Rasmussen Reports’ matchups with Clinton since last October. His support has been hovering around the 40% mark since April, but it remains to be seen whether he’s just having a good week or this actually represents a real move forward among voters.
Trump now earns 75% support among his fellow Republicans and picks up 14% of the Democratic vote. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Democrats like Clinton, as do 10% of GOP voters. Both candidates face a sizable number of potential defections because of unhappiness with them in their own parties.
Trump made a major speech on jobs and trade on Tuesday that even the New York Times characterized as “perhaps the most forceful case he has made for the crux of his candidacy …. that the days of globalism have passed and that a new approach is necessary.” Some also speculate that last week’s vote in Great Britain to leave the European Union signals a rise of economic nationalism that is good for Trump. Despite the media panic and market swings that have resulted, Americans are not particularly worried that the “Brexit” will hurt them in the pocketbook. Meanwhile a Fox News poll from the same time period puts Clinton at +6, a Reuters poll puts her at +10, and PPP at +4. And Rasmussen has historically consistently put Trump and Republicans ahead even when almost every other pollster wasn't. I wouldn't put too much stock on it or you're going to fall down the Romney rabbit hole. Rasmussen, home of President Romney Let's ignore the polling averages and the 538 election forecastMeanwhile, here's this gem about Trump by Trump being statistically tied... in Georgia. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/731959001143988229 Hillary almost never leads Trump in any Georgia polls, it's not a state that's in much danger for him. The 538 forecast gets some things right, but also has subtle fudging going on, even if it's not deliberate. Polling right now isn't really representative of people turning out for Johnson in November, they're just answering Johnson in polls instead of undecided or abstain because his name is an option. Most people probably know nothing about him and haven't been exposed to him, yet in some of these states they're using polls that put him as high as 10-15%. The actual cap for a third party candidate's popular vote should be more like 3%, which is what Nader got in 2000 - we can even be generous and go up to 5%. Jill Stein did a third as well as GJ in 2012 (which means she got a third of a percent). But she's not in the model - that's a red flag. Ross Perot had to go through enormous effort to get his vote share. Now, it's not impossible that GJ could have a better performance, but it's a long shot.
Little miss homeopathic medicine will get almost nothing as soon as Bernie finally wipes the tears off his failed campaign and praises his goddess.
|
I think Johnson has a higher than 3% cap just because of how disliked both Clinton and Trump are. Trump's economic policies are also about as unpalatable to libertarians as Clinton's are, and that's the pet policy domain of a lot of libertarians. Not 10% high, per se, but I think he could hit 5 or 6% nationally if he plays his cards right and campaigns in the right states.
Plus Trump's pretty much the opposite of an objectivist and libertarians love them some Ayn Rand (and not in the fake pathetic Paul Ryan way).
|
On July 01 2016 02:55 Doodsmack wrote:
^They'll see Johnson's name on the ballot too. I don't see why it's necessarily the case that Johnson's poll numbers are inaccurate just because he's a third party.
It's about turnout; people won't go out in the first place to vote for him. This will be his best year yet, but it still won't be that great. Why? Well, he polls comparably to Deez Nuts, which is also on the level of vote share that Ross Perot got in 1996 - leftovers from him spending the equivalent of $100 million on his 1992 campaign. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_33116.pdf
He'll have a role in keeping New Mexico blue and so on, but once the major parties settle in after their conventions, he'll have a dwindling relevance without a way to make his campaign take off, financially or otherwise.
|
WASHINGTON — The Pentagon is lifting its ban on transgender people serving in the U.S. armed forces, effective immediately, Defense Secretary Ash Carter announced Thursday.
The new policy means transgender service members may no longer be involuntarily discharged or denied reenlistment based on their gender identity. Those currently on duty who have been keeping their gender identity hidden may now serve openly.
“This is the right thing to do for our people and for the force,” Carter said at a press conference at the Pentagon. “We’re talking about talented Americans who are serving with distinction or who want the opportunity to serve. We can’t allow barriers unrelated to a person’s qualifications to prevent us from recruiting and retaining those who can best accomplish the mission.”
The historic policy change, seen by many as the last step of President Barack Barack Obama’s 2011 repeal of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, is being phased in over the next year. The military is setting up a process for service members to transition genders while serving. The new policy also imposes standards for medical care, and outlines responsibilities for commanders to develop guidance, training and specific policies going forward.
Source
|
On July 01 2016 03:52 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On July 01 2016 02:55 Doodsmack wrote:
^They'll see Johnson's name on the ballot too. I don't see why it's necessarily the case that Johnson's poll numbers are inaccurate just because he's a third party. It's about turnout; people won't go out in the first place to vote for him. This will be his best year yet, but it still won't be that great. Why? Well, he polls comparably to Deez Nuts, which is also on the level of vote share that Ross Perot got in 1996 - leftovers from him spending the equivalent of $100 million on his 1992 campaign. http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2015/PPP_Release_National_33116.pdfHe'll have a role in keeping New Mexico blue and so on, but once the major parties settle in after their conventions, he'll have a dwindling relevance without a way to make his campaign take off, financially or otherwise.
I'll take your word for it (on all 10 predictions).
|
On June 30 2016 22:51 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 22:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 30 2016 21:45 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Ron Paul put similar bills up. Good idea if you ask me. TRUMP UP BY 4 IN LATEST RASMUSSEN POLLS http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watchThe latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 43% of the vote, while Clinton earns 39%. Twelve percent (12%) still like another candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Last week at this time, it was Clinton 44%, Trump 39%. This is Trump’s highest level of support in Rasmussen Reports’ matchups with Clinton since last October. His support has been hovering around the 40% mark since April, but it remains to be seen whether he’s just having a good week or this actually represents a real move forward among voters.
Trump now earns 75% support among his fellow Republicans and picks up 14% of the Democratic vote. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Democrats like Clinton, as do 10% of GOP voters. Both candidates face a sizable number of potential defections because of unhappiness with them in their own parties.
Trump made a major speech on jobs and trade on Tuesday that even the New York Times characterized as “perhaps the most forceful case he has made for the crux of his candidacy …. that the days of globalism have passed and that a new approach is necessary.” Some also speculate that last week’s vote in Great Britain to leave the European Union signals a rise of economic nationalism that is good for Trump. Despite the media panic and market swings that have resulted, Americans are not particularly worried that the “Brexit” will hurt them in the pocketbook. Meanwhile a Fox News poll from the same time period puts Clinton at +6, a Reuters poll puts her at +10, and PPP at +4. And Rasmussen has historically consistently put Trump and Republicans ahead even when almost every other pollster wasn't. I wouldn't put too much stock on it or you're going to fall down the Romney rabbit hole. Rasmussen, home of President Romney Let's ignore the polling averages and the 538 election forecastMeanwhile, here's this gem about Trump by Trump being statistically tied... in Georgia. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/731959001143988229 My favorite 538s recently:
Trump has a better chance of cameoing in another “Home Alone” movie with Macaulay Culkin — or playing in the NBA Finals — than winning the Republican nomination.
The lesson … is that Trump’s campaign will fail by one means or another. Like Cain, Bachmann and Gingrich, Buchanan, Huckabee and Forbes came nowhere close to winning the Republican nomination.
Our emphatic prediction is simply that Trump will not win the nomination. It’s not even clear that he’s trying to do so.
538's team has a bit of credibility to recover in this election cycle. To their credit, they issued real mea culpas after the series of failed predictions.
|
I was really impressed with Nick Silver’s admission that he acted like a pundit, rather than do his job. I also liked how he immediately released another article reminding folks that 80% =/= 100%. How well he knows lazy democrats.
|
Donald Trump may have announced that he forgave over $45 million in personal loans to his campaign, but a Thursday NBC News report found no evidence he has actually done so.
A week after the Trump campaign released a statement claiming that the loan was “fully extinguished,” NBC News found no Federal Election Commission record proving that those funds had been converted to donations. Campaign staffers refused to share legal paperwork proving that the transaction was complete, although spokeswoman Hope Hicks said last week that the campaign planned to submit the formal paperwork on June 23.
This week, Hicks told NBC News that the paperwork would “be filed with the next regularly scheduled FEC report.” The next monthly report is due July 20.
All of Trump’s spending on the 2016 race was still categorized as loans in the most recent FEC filing, posted June 20.
Until the loans are formally forgiven, Trump retains the right to use new donations to reimburse himself until August under federal law, according to the report.
This could raise questions for potential donors concerned that their funds could be kept by the candidate rather than put toward the campaign. As Trump’s June filing revealed, the presumptive GOP nominee has struggled to raise funds so far, taking in only $3.1 million in May compared to $26.4 million for rival Hillary Clinton.
Trump is free to either file a stand-alone statement asserting the forgiveness of his loans, as his campaign said he would do last week, or to wait and disclose this change on the FEC report out July 20.
What is clear is that he has not yet followed through with his claim to have already converted the $45 million in loans into a donation.
Source
|
On July 01 2016 05:17 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 22:51 ticklishmusic wrote:On June 30 2016 22:35 TheTenthDoc wrote:On June 30 2016 21:45 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:Ron Paul put similar bills up. Good idea if you ask me. TRUMP UP BY 4 IN LATEST RASMUSSEN POLLS http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2016/white_house_watchThe latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds Trump with 43% of the vote, while Clinton earns 39%. Twelve percent (12%) still like another candidate, and five percent (5%) are undecided. (To see survey question wording, click here.)
Last week at this time, it was Clinton 44%, Trump 39%. This is Trump’s highest level of support in Rasmussen Reports’ matchups with Clinton since last October. His support has been hovering around the 40% mark since April, but it remains to be seen whether he’s just having a good week or this actually represents a real move forward among voters.
Trump now earns 75% support among his fellow Republicans and picks up 14% of the Democratic vote. Seventy-six percent (76%) of Democrats like Clinton, as do 10% of GOP voters. Both candidates face a sizable number of potential defections because of unhappiness with them in their own parties.
Trump made a major speech on jobs and trade on Tuesday that even the New York Times characterized as “perhaps the most forceful case he has made for the crux of his candidacy …. that the days of globalism have passed and that a new approach is necessary.” Some also speculate that last week’s vote in Great Britain to leave the European Union signals a rise of economic nationalism that is good for Trump. Despite the media panic and market swings that have resulted, Americans are not particularly worried that the “Brexit” will hurt them in the pocketbook. Meanwhile a Fox News poll from the same time period puts Clinton at +6, a Reuters poll puts her at +10, and PPP at +4. And Rasmussen has historically consistently put Trump and Republicans ahead even when almost every other pollster wasn't. I wouldn't put too much stock on it or you're going to fall down the Romney rabbit hole. Rasmussen, home of President Romney Let's ignore the polling averages and the 538 election forecastMeanwhile, here's this gem about Trump by Trump being statistically tied... in Georgia. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/731959001143988229 My favorite 538s recently: Show nested quote +Trump has a better chance of cameoing in another “Home Alone” movie with Macaulay Culkin — or playing in the NBA Finals — than winning the Republican nomination.
The lesson … is that Trump’s campaign will fail by one means or another. Like Cain, Bachmann and Gingrich, Buchanan, Huckabee and Forbes came nowhere close to winning the Republican nomination.
Our emphatic prediction is simply that Trump will not win the nomination. It’s not even clear that he’s trying to do so. 538's team has a bit of credibility to recover in this election cycle. To their credit, they issued real mea culpas after the series of failed predictions.
Nah. 538 was right, except they underestimated the Republican "elites" incompetence (which is hilariously part of Trump's critique of said elites). Only Ted Cruz was ever able to deal body blows to Trump in places like Iowa, whereas they fumbled over each other to cannibalize their way to 2nd place finishes in places like NH, South Carolina, etc. Silver's predictions MAY have worked out if everyone besides Trump and Cruz didn't have the same exact (stupid) strategy and that also didn't result in everyone staying in forever.
|
538's punditry was just as bad as everyone else's. Their stats were still better than everyone else's though. That's the distinction to make.
|
On July 01 2016 02:40 GGTeMpLaR wrote:Show nested quote +On June 30 2016 12:33 oBlade wrote:+ Show Spoiler +Sam Harris had some interesting things to say about this. The administration's response, focusing on guns, would have no application in any other context (for example, a bombing, like the Boston marathon attack, or an airplane hijacking). We've now got Boston, Charlie Hebdo, Paris, Brussels, San Bernardino, Orlando, plus failed attacks in Texas and on the train in Belgium; this is a bad pattern. Now, if talking about Islamic terrorism were something that caused terrorists to multiply, that in itself would be a fucking alarming proposition warranting further discussion. We're constantly told Islamic terrorism has nothing to do with Islam - if that's true, then we should be able to talk about the former without this silly worry, for the benefit of all members of our species. These questions are either uncomfortable or controversial, which is why the US left wants to sweep them under the rug. Or they can't turn the ship around, too. + Show Spoiler +Like the president missed the point here. He thinks, or he's representing, basically that the right wants people to talk about radical Islam because talking about it is a quick fix. That's not it at all, people want to talk about problems in the open so we can understand them, then move to fix them, rather than pretend everything's fine. But now I'm being told that not talking about the problem, or having leaders who don't openly address it, is a viable strategy...? though its efficacy remains doubtful. However, only when there's an attack against civilization, apparently, does this strategy apply - it's fine to tout your supposed achievements drone striking someone in Yemen in a State of the Union speech, for example. If this were about magically saving lives by not "jinxing" more terrorism into existence by talking about it, the president should be able to look the American people (figuratively) in the face and present that case, rather than just being patronizing and dismissing it like it's just the other side of the aisle throwing a fit. To me, it's transparent: people in power don't want to accept criticism on how they handle this issue, so they insist that talking about it makes us less safe, and they also don't want to actually do things, or rather take chances, because that could also invite criticism, and therefore not be politically expedient. On no other issue would anyone for a moment buy this. Rising heroin abuse? Let's all just pretend everything's hunky-dory, because saying the word "heroin" might cause further addiction as people start to hear about heroin and decide to try it who wouldn't have been exposed otherwise, but oh, I can still brag about sending a helicopter full of highly trained people wearing uniforms to rescue someone who was overdosing once and fly him to the hospital in just 40 minutes. That Sam Harris video gave me hope that rationality still exists in the world.
I was going to say something but then I remembered that "moral clarity" was like the first word in this video...
Do you know what moral clarity is? It's the ability to continue to understand who the bad guy is when your side is doing fucked up shit as well. It's what you substitute for actual morality when you would still like to pretend you are the good guys, even though reality doesn't seem to demonstrate that. It works something like this: sure, I disagree with some of Israel's actions, but because I have moral clarity I get to say Palestinians are worse and so I get to dismiss the fact that I disagree with some of Israel's actions.
Before Sam Harris was popular, the only time I had been confronted with moral clarity was in fucking Goodkind's rightwing fetishist fantasy, when the hero kills a bunch of unarmed pacifists because they don't want to fight for him (I'm not even kidding):
"Men behind Richard hit the line of evil's guardians with unrestrained violence. People armed only with their hatred for moral clarity fell bloodied, terribly injured, and dead. The line of people collapsed before the merciless charge. Some of the people, screaming their contempt, used their fists to attack Richard's men. They were met with swift and deadly steel."
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_clarity)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
