|
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 August 21 2016 05:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2016 05:09 zlefin wrote:
danglars -> are you aware of the reason why increased sanctions vs Iran were not a viable option? (if yes, that's fine, just wanted to be sure) I'm aware "X is not a viable option" is the modern translation of "I disagree with your approach in no small way" in politics. I do admit that everyone does not yet agree with me and some may never.
no it's not; it means exactly what it says, at least in this case. I'll take your statement to mean you are unaware of the reasons why it was not a viable option, unless you indicate otherwise and present a (short and basic ofc) case why it would've been viable.
|
On August 20 2016 08:54 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 07:34 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 07:21 puerk wrote:On August 20 2016 07:16 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 06:55 Dan HH wrote:On August 20 2016 06:46 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 06:29 Dan HH wrote:On August 20 2016 06:20 oBlade wrote:On August 20 2016 06:04 mahrgell wrote:On August 20 2016 05:49 oBlade wrote:
[quote]
The president's got style and substance fused pretty well - he's not doing much of anything and not making any spectacle of it. That's the unfortunate climate we're in, or he thinks we're in, that he's politically afraid to practice robust foreign policy because people might think any actions the US would abroad are too dirty and stop voting. So we get these kick the bucket fetuses of haphazard policy involving supplying arms, sanctions, drone strikes, and having fewer troops in the Middle East than in Germany, and hoping nothing ends up bad enough that the Democrats would either 1) lose elections over it or 2) have to do something decisive like start a war that they would then lose elections over. Yeah, the lack of US wars/invasions is really a dissappointing low point in US foreign policy. I wonder how the US citizens can accept this lack of action. Most Americans aren't buying it, actually: + Show Spoiler +They might have thought differently if US foreign policy was working even without the military. Would staying in Iraq for decades count as 'it's working' any more than this though? Or what is the proposed alternative here? Those are the only two foreign policy multiple choices, occupy a specific country for decades or continue with exactly what the government's doing now. Hence the 2nd question in my comment. If occupation is bad, and leaving is bad, what is this 'robust foreign policy' you are referencing cryptically that at the same time involves having more troops in the Middle East but without occupying anything? There's nothing wrong with occupying (or leaving) a country so long as it serves your goals, which the president doesn't have. Instead we get "containment" of ISIS while letting the international community turn Syria into a playground for proxy wars. In the case of Iraq, the government asked the US to withdraw. you still did not answer the question. also the approach that there is nothing wrong with actions as long as they are selfish is exactly the kind of morally bancrupt stuff we were discussing with kwizach a few months ago... You misunderstand. Having well-defined foreign policy goals is not "selfish." The point is there are valid contexts for going to war, for occupying countries, for just about any action. Eschewing something on principle isn't a viable way to be successful. A well defined (albeit poorly considered) fp goal is exactly what created this issue, there is no sane reason to assume that repeating the war and occupation part would solve the issue rather than again simply delay it for that duration if whoever you leave in charge again doesn't have the logistical capabillities of controlling that territory War with ISIS may not be a very hard sell to voters, but it inevitably brings you to the same conundrum. And paying for the reconstruction of the infrastructure vital to keeping the power from fractionalizing after you leave, and arming, training and propping up the replacement more 'friendly' tyrant(s) and his army which you have to hold your fingers crossed that will do as expected, those are not only a much more difficult sell to voters, but also a long shot at creating stability. That is why 'we get containment' instead of something more decisive. There is no decisive long-term solution that doesn't have all of these issues: high risk of failure/backfiring, much more expensive than just a war, very tough sell with your own people. It's not robust foreign policy to invade Syria, push ISIS back, then give the reigns to Assad or a rebel faction and tell them have fun with the next wave. It's also not robust foreign policy to invade Syria, push ISIS back, then stay there for xx years until people back home urge you to retreat, and it's left for the wolves again.
Dumping arms to people for the fuck of it just to spite a Russian-backed regime is exactly how you end up with Talibans. Curiously, leaving the dictator alone is exactly what we heard from the "Saddam was a bad guy, but" crowd after the second war in Iraq. The lesson there is to know what your goals are and do it right the first time. Waiting for a problem to solve itself leads nowhere.
You're focusing on Syria, which is fine, but the issue I'm talking about is the entire US foreign policy. The only thing resembling an achievement in the region: the Iran deal. In the meantime, Libya is in civil war because of the same mistakes made in Iraq - failure to anticipate the effects of a regime change (in Iraq some problems were disbanding the army, failure to get Turkish support which let Baathist loyalists slip away in the invasion, and leaving open questions about the new country). We can't get Pakistan to even pretend to sanction the drone program anymore. The current administration has also dropped the ball on North Korea.
When you do procrastinate, you're increasing the cost to everyone later. The west now has to pay aid money to Turkey and the refugee crisis is costing allies in Europe. Meanwhile the Turks can't stop oppressing the Kurds which is undermining the whole point of the Iraqi republic. These are US "allies." And the war is still festering, destroying the region further and further.
Here are the countries whose existence the US might want to pursue in the long run: Kurdistan, Palestine
Here are the countries created so far: ISIS
With Syria, the US should have long ago (it's been 5 years of the crisis) been prepared to force the issue. Another US failure is that the diplomatic process is dust in the wind. But like I said, the current administration would never even entertain the thought of deploying the military. Instead they sit back, watch, and run guns to anyone who asks for them. It's the foreign policy of a weasel. My position is simple. Whenever I hear the word "genocide" the issue becomes a priority for the US government. Meaning Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur, Syria - either leading a multilateral response or being ready to go it alone.
|
United States41984 Posts
How exactly has Obama dropped the ball on North Korea? Intervention is impossible, they had the bomb even before Obama took office but even without it they have a deterrent. During Obama's tenure China, North Korea's only major backer, has moved into the US camp of condemnation. Joint exercises with SK have continued, NK's threats have never once been given credence and the American commitment to SK has never wavered. What is the benchmark here for catching the ball?
|
Construction of a controversial crude oil pipeline set to span at least 1,168 miles from North Dakota to Illinois has temporarily been halted in North Dakota amid protests by Native American tribes.
Members of the Standing Rock Sioux fear the pipeline could potentially contaminate their local drinking water and lands sacred to the tribe.
Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirschmeier said in a press conference Thursday that "construction of the Dakota Access pipeline south of Mandan [N.D.] has been stopped — for safety reasons," as member station Prairie Public Broadcasting reported.
A spokesman for the company that is building the pipeline, Energy Transfer Partners, told The Wall Street Journal that "construction has been halted at the protest site" ahead of a court hearing next Wednesday, but that "it continues elsewhere."
In July, the environmental group Earthjustice filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, seeking an injunction against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which authorized the pipeline's construction. "The construction and operation of the pipeline, as authorized by the Corps, threatens the Tribe's environmental and economic well-being, and would damage and destroy sites of great historic, religious, and cultural significance to the tribe," the lawsuit states.
Construction on the controversial section of the pipeline started last week and is set to cross under the Missouri River just upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, Prairie Public reported. The reservation itself "straddles the North Dakota-South Dakota border," wrote The Associated Press.
Source
|
On August 20 2016 17:14 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On August 20 2016 16:48 TMagpie wrote:On August 20 2016 14:02 Danglars wrote:On August 20 2016 08:48 TMagpie wrote:On August 20 2016 08:44 GGTeMpLaR wrote:On August 20 2016 08:38 Plansix wrote:
What one group calls "identity politics" is another's "relevant issues we are facing at this time." I think the two are not the same On August 20 2016 08:43 Nyxisto wrote:
identity politics is only a new problem for conservatives because they're losing the battle. I mean it wasn't problematic to discriminate whatever subgroup was considered to be undesirable so what's the big deal now? Surprised that the targets of discrimination have had enough? Great example of shutting down the discussion - just accuse an entire ideology of being racist and okay with discrimination of minorities because they don't belong to your group Isn't that literally the logic used by the actual racists you are so opposed to begin with? Are you suggesting that the GOP are actively helping black movements, Mexican rights, and are actively easing immigration laws to allow more people of color into the US? We're skirting close to there is only one nonracist position on blacks Mexicans and immigration laws which is active government program intervention, balkanized laws, and an open border de-facto or otherwise. Hyperpartisanship demands the view that the GOP hates blacks Mexicans and immigrants and fashions its platform off of it. Let me be blunted then. What party platform does the GOP have that is directed at specifically bettering the lives of minorities? Not "all Americans" and not "everyone" but specifically minorities. Where in their party is it? Show nested quote +...directed at specifically bettering the lives of minorities? Not "all Americans" and not "everyone" but specifically minorities. This is in response to my worry that there is only one nonracist position. A position in favor of active government program intervention and balkanized laws. We're officially there. Yes, the only way you may defend GOP does not hate blacks Mexicans and immigrants and fashions its platform off of it and the only nonracist position on blacks Mexicans and immigrations laws is active government program immigration and balkanized laws is by citing programs directed at specifically bettering the lives of minorities ... not all Americans and not everyone but specifically minorities. I'm blunt; repeatedly demanding this framing of the debate is exactly what I find wrong.
what are balkanized laws?
|
On August 21 2016 06:33 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +Construction of a controversial crude oil pipeline set to span at least 1,168 miles from North Dakota to Illinois has temporarily been halted in North Dakota amid protests by Native American tribes.
Members of the Standing Rock Sioux fear the pipeline could potentially contaminate their local drinking water and lands sacred to the tribe.
Morton County Sheriff Kyle Kirschmeier said in a press conference Thursday that "construction of the Dakota Access pipeline south of Mandan [N.D.] has been stopped — for safety reasons," as member station Prairie Public Broadcasting reported.
A spokesman for the company that is building the pipeline, Energy Transfer Partners, told The Wall Street Journal that "construction has been halted at the protest site" ahead of a court hearing next Wednesday, but that "it continues elsewhere."
In July, the environmental group Earthjustice filed a lawsuit on behalf of the Standing Rock Sioux tribe, seeking an injunction against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which authorized the pipeline's construction. "The construction and operation of the pipeline, as authorized by the Corps, threatens the Tribe's environmental and economic well-being, and would damage and destroy sites of great historic, religious, and cultural significance to the tribe," the lawsuit states.
Construction on the controversial section of the pipeline started last week and is set to cross under the Missouri River just upstream of the Standing Rock Sioux Reservation, Prairie Public reported. The reservation itself "straddles the North Dakota-South Dakota border," wrote The Associated Press. Source
The videos reminded me of an old western, only this time, I was cheering for the right side.
|
On August 21 2016 06:16 oBlade wrote:
Dumping arms to people for the fuck of it just to spite a Russian-backed regime is exactly how you end up with Talibans. Curiously, leaving the dictator alone is exactly what we heard from the "Saddam was a bad guy, but" crowd after the second war in Iraq. The lesson there is to know what your goals are and do it right the first time. Waiting for a problem to solve itself leads nowhere.
Partly agreed, there is no guarantee that Syria would be any better off in the hands of any rebel faction than they were in the hands of Assad, and him having been an ally of Russia for a long time is a bigger factor than ethical reservations for the US opposition to his regime. But the comparison with Saddam is far fetched, Saddam's regime was in full control of Iraq and all the US had to do for stability was not invade, whereas Assad's government is in such a precarious situation that he requires just as much if not more help to win control of Syria than some of the rebels.
On August 21 2016 06:16 oBlade wrote:
When you do procrastinate, you're increasing the cost to everyone later. The west now has to pay aid money to Turkey and the refugee crisis is costing allies in Europe. Meanwhile the Turks can't stop oppressing the Kurds which is undermining the whole point of the Iraqi republic. These are US "allies." And the war is still festering, destroying the region further and further.
Here are the countries whose existence the US might want to pursue in the long run: Kurdistan, Palestine
Here are the countries created so far: ISIS
With Syria, the US should have long ago (it's been 5 years of the crisis) been prepared to force the issue. Another US failure is that the diplomatic process is dust in the wind. But like I said, the current administration would never even entertain the thought of deploying the military. Instead they sit back, watch, and run guns to anyone who asks for them. It's the foreign policy of a weasel. My position is simple. Whenever I hear the word "genocide" the issue becomes a priority for the US government. Meaning Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur, Syria - either leading a multilateral response or being ready to go it alone.
It's not as simple as Turks are oppressing Kurds and we should do something about it. Yes, the Turkish government has been using aggressive assimilation tactics, but there have been slow and steady improvements until last year, and there have been even peace negotiations with PKK until last year when the conflict reignited due to the situation in Syria. PKK is a terrorist organization by any metric imaginable to the point of using suicide bombers on civilian targets, which makes the situation far from being morally unambiguous and concluding that Turkey are the bad guys and Kurds are the good guys and intervention is necessary. What Turkey is doing doesn't fit your simple position (in your own words), not only is it not genocide, it's not even close to what Francoist Spain was doing in the name of assimilation without turning genocidal.
And Kurdish rebels also at war with the Assad governement, which you were suggesting the US should put pride aside and help. Initiating any plan of establishing Kurdistan would be contradictory with trying to make Assad regain Syria. It's also impractical to make an enemy out of Turkey in order to establish a country with lower pool of recruitment, not as technologically advanced and with a much worse infrastructure, that the US would have to defend for the entirety of the foreseable future.
|
|
|
On August 21 2016 06:28 KwarK wrote:
How exactly has Obama dropped the ball on North Korea? Intervention is impossible, they had the bomb even before Obama took office but even without it they have a deterrent. During Obama's tenure China, North Korea's only major backer, has moved into the US camp of condemnation. Joint exercises with SK have continued, NK's threats have never once been given credence and the American commitment to SK has never wavered. What is the benchmark here for catching the ball?
China has started to back away, but is that more due to this administration's ingenious diplomacy or China's own apprehensions about a rogue country with (and testing) nuclear weapons on its border? To me it indicates a worsening situation, i.e. the DPRK getting a stronger hand.
The breakdown of six-party talks over the Unha rocket was an enormous mistake. Now, dropping the ball might be SOP in this arena. You can go back to the first nuclear tests under GWB, and further back to Pakistan getting nuclear weapons. Did we need hindsight to consider nuclear weapons in Pakistan would spread problems? It doesn't have to be an indictment only of Obama, maybe everyone drops the ball, I'm not trying to be partisan.
There's this tradition of incremental foreign policy which is essentially someone in Washington at a mixer with knobs to increase and decrease economic sanctions and trade more or fewer arms. That's all well and good but at some point you have to achieve things or accept that inaction isn't a guarantee against failure. Unfortunately there's this latent selfish isolationism, like nothing is the US's problem. People and bureaucrats failing to grasp the role of a superpower. I just think the country that brought East and West Germany together can do better.
On August 21 2016 09:07 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2016 06:16 oBlade wrote:
Dumping arms to people for the fuck of it just to spite a Russian-backed regime is exactly how you end up with Talibans. Curiously, leaving the dictator alone is exactly what we heard from the "Saddam was a bad guy, but" crowd after the second war in Iraq. The lesson there is to know what your goals are and do it right the first time. Waiting for a problem to solve itself leads nowhere. Partly agreed, there is no guarantee that Syria would be any better off in the hands of any rebel faction than they were in the hands of Assad, and him having been an ally of Russia for a long time is a bigger factor than ethical reservations for the US opposition to his regime. But the comparison with Saddam is far fetched, Saddam's regime was in full control of Iraq and all the US had to do for stability was not invade, whereas Assad's government is in such a precarious situation that he requires just as much if not more help to win control of Syria than some of the rebels.
I don't think it's okay to play proxy war roulette with a country's future just because it's already turned to shit.
Yes, Iraq was stable if you look past starting wars with Iran, Kuwait, and the Kurds. The point is if you have a problem, solve it at once, don't withdraw, tack on 12 years of sanctions, and then have to start again at the beginning. But that's exactly where we are with Syria, everything is stalled.
On August 21 2016 09:07 Dan HH wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2016 06:16 oBlade wrote:
When you do procrastinate, you're increasing the cost to everyone later. The west now has to pay aid money to Turkey and the refugee crisis is costing allies in Europe. Meanwhile the Turks can't stop oppressing the Kurds which is undermining the whole point of the Iraqi republic. These are US "allies." And the war is still festering, destroying the region further and further.
Here are the countries whose existence the US might want to pursue in the long run: Kurdistan, Palestine
Here are the countries created so far: ISIS
With Syria, the US should have long ago (it's been 5 years of the crisis) been prepared to force the issue. Another US failure is that the diplomatic process is dust in the wind. But like I said, the current administration would never even entertain the thought of deploying the military. Instead they sit back, watch, and run guns to anyone who asks for them. It's the foreign policy of a weasel. My position is simple. Whenever I hear the word "genocide" the issue becomes a priority for the US government. Meaning Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur, Syria - either leading a multilateral response or being ready to go it alone. It's not as simple as Turks are oppressing Kurds and we should do something about it. Yes, the Turkish government has been using aggressive assimilation tactics, but there have been slow and steady improvements until last year, and there have been even peace negotiations with PKK until last year when the conflict reignited due to the situation in Syria. PKK is a terrorist organization by any metric imaginable to the point of using suicide bombers on civilian targets, which makes the situation far from being morally unambiguous and concluding that Turkey are the bad guys and Kurds are the good guys and intervention is necessary. What Turkey is doing doesn't fit your simple position (in your own words), not only is it not genocide, it's not even close to what Francoist Spain was doing in the name of assimilation without turning genocidal.
I didn't say to invade Turkey. You're strawmanning me as a neocon or something. The genocide in Syria was referring to ISIS, especially towards Yazidis.
On August 21 2016 09:07 Dan HH wrote:
And Kurdish rebels also at war with the Assad governement, which you were suggesting the US should put pride aside and help. Initiating any plan of establishing Kurdistan would be contradictory with trying to make Assad regain Syria. It's also impractical to make an enemy out of Turkey in order to establish a country with lower pool of recruitment, not as technologically advanced and with a much worse infrastructure, that the US would have to defend for the entirety of the foreseable future.
If you wanted to make an independent Kurdistan, you would have to cut it from Iraq, Syria, and Turkey and not just split Iraq which is a threat of Kurdish autonomy already. Why? So the region isn't full of Alsace-Lorraines. Cutting part of Syria seems easy. It could be part of an already necessary diplomatic settlement to the war. But how do you cut off part of Turkey? Well, give Turkey something in return. Yes, it's difficult. But failing to do the things that are difficult doesn't mean you're doing a good job. And you wouldn't have to defend an independent Kurdistan any more than Iraq, but even if you did, it'd be a good ally.
This is what I'm talking about. You can't identify a goal the US has, let alone a good one. Nor do I remember recommending to help Assad. My point is that if you see a crisis beginning, the answer isn't to fund a regime's enemies for 5 years under the table just to see what happens because the analysts said "Arab Spring." My point is the State Department is clearly fatigued from fuckup after fuckup and the Defense Department must be tired of drone striking the resulting messes. Now there's a Mexican standoff situation in Syria. No internal force is capable of undoing ISIS because they're stretched fighting among each other. (You know, if they took over enough, if they put a flag over Damascus, I bet that would trigger international intervention, is that the role of "containment," laziness?) So how about an external force? Why is Israel the only thing the Arab countries can team up about? Why can't the US put that together? If not lead it, orchestrate it, a multilateral force to secure against everyone's common enemy, ISIS, and enforce peace talks? My original point: domestic political convenience. I think it's a great thing that the US executive can act essentially unilaterally. Except that the electoral climate is perceived to reward those who refuse to do anything.
|
On August 21 2016 10:52 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2016 09:07 Dan HH wrote:On August 21 2016 06:16 oBlade wrote:
When you do procrastinate, you're increasing the cost to everyone later. The west now has to pay aid money to Turkey and the refugee crisis is costing allies in Europe. Meanwhile the Turks can't stop oppressing the Kurds which is undermining the whole point of the Iraqi republic. These are US "allies." And the war is still festering, destroying the region further and further.
Here are the countries whose existence the US might want to pursue in the long run: Kurdistan, Palestine
Here are the countries created so far: ISIS
With Syria, the US should have long ago (it's been 5 years of the crisis) been prepared to force the issue. Another US failure is that the diplomatic process is dust in the wind. But like I said, the current administration would never even entertain the thought of deploying the military. Instead they sit back, watch, and run guns to anyone who asks for them. It's the foreign policy of a weasel. My position is simple. Whenever I hear the word "genocide" the issue becomes a priority for the US government. Meaning Cambodia, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur, Syria - either leading a multilateral response or being ready to go it alone. It's not as simple as Turks are oppressing Kurds and we should do something about it. Yes, the Turkish government has been using aggressive assimilation tactics, but there have been slow and steady improvements until last year, and there have been even peace negotiations with PKK until last year when the conflict reignited due to the situation in Syria. PKK is a terrorist organization by any metric imaginable to the point of using suicide bombers on civilian targets, which makes the situation far from being morally unambiguous and concluding that Turkey are the bad guys and Kurds are the good guys and intervention is necessary. What Turkey is doing doesn't fit your simple position (in your own words), not only is it not genocide, it's not even close to what Francoist Spain was doing in the name of assimilation without turning genocidal. I didn't say to invade Turkey. You're strawmanning me as a neocon or something. The genocide in Syria was referring to ISIS, especially towards Yazidis.
I said 'intervention' not 'invasion', in the part I replied to you heavily implied without outright saying it that the US should help Kurds secede from Turkey. I explained why I think that's not a good idea and even if it were why it shouldn't be a priority, regardless of what means that goal would be achieved through.
I assure you it's not my intention to misrepresent your points, avoiding that is exactly why I've asked you 2 or 3 times yesterday to elaborate when you were cryptical.
|
The problem with turkey is that you can give them something for the kurdish territories that will make them more powerful then russia overnight. But they would refuse from day one any concessions to pkk and you can't really blame them.
|
just to clarify about the reuninfication: gorbachov is not a country.
|
Trump in the lead again in the polls. I've missed the last 100 pages here but every time I popped in there where people saying Trump is totally finished now its finally over.
I really wonder how many 'Trump has no chance' posts there have been in this thread, would make a nice montage when Trump wins.
|
On August 21 2016 20:57 zeo wrote:
Trump in the lead again in the polls. I've missed the last 100 pages here but every time I popped in there where people saying Trump is totally finished now its finally over.
I really wonder how many 'Trump has no chance' posts there have been in this thread, would make a nice montage when Trump wins.
links :D
|
On August 21 2016 20:57 zeo wrote:
Trump in the lead again in the polls. I've missed the last 100 pages here but every time I popped in there where people saying Trump is totally finished now its finally over.
I really wonder how many 'Trump has no chance' posts there have been in this thread, would make a nice montage when Trump wins.
Citation needed*
|
does anyone else find the degree to which polls fluctuate in itself rather disconcerting?
people whose opinions on who to vote for who can be swayed by momentarily shifting angles by the news media... too many? or are the news items that came out really that important?
though im rather miffed at myself for actually taking the time to think even more on this election
|
On August 21 2016 20:59 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2016 20:57 zeo wrote:
Trump in the lead again in the polls. I've missed the last 100 pages here but every time I popped in there where people saying Trump is totally finished now its finally over.
I really wonder how many 'Trump has no chance' posts there have been in this thread, would make a nice montage when Trump wins. links :D
LA Times http://graphics.latimes.com/usc-presidential-poll-dashboard/
edit: It's followed the general trend throughout the election cycle so expect more. Interesting to note the boost he got in black votes (and latino)
By the way guys its been 260 days since Clintons last press conference.
|
On August 21 2016 21:15 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
does anyone else find the degree to which polls fluctuate in itself rather disconcerting?
people whose opinions on who to vote for who can be swayed by momentarily shifting angles by the news media... too many? or are the news items that came out really that important?
though im rather miffed at myself for actually taking the time to think even more on this election
not disconcerting.
There's a margin of error, so some amount of random fluctuation in polls is just expected due to sampling errors.
Also, the question is usually worded "if you voted today", while some people have made up their minds, a fair number haven't, and may still be deciding. There's also a lot of people who really don't pay much attention to the news (unlike most of us here), and so only have a vague awareness of the campaigns, and haven't really put much thought into it at all yet. They only really sit down to think and decide about it in the last month (or days).
|
On August 21 2016 22:25 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2016 21:15 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
does anyone else find the degree to which polls fluctuate in itself rather disconcerting?
people whose opinions on who to vote for who can be swayed by momentarily shifting angles by the news media... too many? or are the news items that came out really that important?
though im rather miffed at myself for actually taking the time to think even more on this election not disconcerting. There's a margin of error, so some amount of random fluctuation in polls is just expected due to sampling errors. Also, the question is usually worded "if you voted today", while some people have made up their minds, a fair number haven't, and may still be deciding. There's also a lot of people who really don't pay much attention to the news (unlike most of us here), and so only have a vague awareness of the campaigns, and haven't really put much thought into it at all yet. They only really sit down to think and decide about it in the last month (or days).
There's also a marked "house effect" for many polls where some polls are just consistently outside the average for one candidate or another (particularly LA times, which zeo is citing). "Trump being ahead" is really a 3-point poll shift from their prior poll which was Clinton +1, conducted while Clinton had a 7-8 point lead in almost all other polls.
Which is pretty consistent with the other batch of polls that put Clinton at ~5 points ahead right now (assuming those others are "more correct").
|
On August 21 2016 22:25 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On August 21 2016 21:15 SpiritoftheTunA wrote:
does anyone else find the degree to which polls fluctuate in itself rather disconcerting?
people whose opinions on who to vote for who can be swayed by momentarily shifting angles by the news media... too many? or are the news items that came out really that important?
though im rather miffed at myself for actually taking the time to think even more on this election not disconcerting. There's a margin of error, so some amount of random fluctuation in polls is just expected due to sampling errors. Also, the question is usually worded "if you voted today", while some people have made up their minds, a fair number haven't, and may still be deciding. There's also a lot of people who really don't pay much attention to the news (unlike most of us here), and so only have a vague awareness of the campaigns, and haven't really put much thought into it at all yet. They only really sit down to think and decide about it in the last month (or days).
thats not disconcerting?
oh well idk GE's overrated anyway
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
