EPTthe romney campaign tried unskewing the polls and they were wrong. however, their mistrust was based on some actual analysis. the trump campaign just... makes stuff up.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 5752
| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
the romney campaign tried unskewing the polls and they were wrong. however, their mistrust was based on some actual analysis. the trump campaign just... makes stuff up. | ||
|
CatharsisUT
United States487 Posts
| ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
On October 25 2016 01:32 Plansix wrote: come on, i only addressed the part about me while using his post to further my agenda.You don’t even need to be a political insider to know that he was talking about internal polling. You just need to have watched the West Wing, American President or any political drama in the last 30 years. | ||
KwarK
United States42973 Posts
Make sense? | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On October 25 2016 01:39 xM(Z wrote: come on, i only addressed the part about me while using his post to further my agenda. Oh sorry, I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about Trump and his campaign. I just bet a co-worker that the Trump camp barely orders internal polling. We are hashing out the details right now. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5281 Posts
no idea where to put it exactly(Edit: have not seen the ending until now, lol  ; still, is the first part any good?). | ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9129 Posts
On October 25 2016 01:37 CatharsisUT wrote: No, Dan, the "it's internal polling" line is not the important part of the response here. The crucial element is misunderstanding the difference between "oversampling" and "overweighting." This isn't an issue where we have to parse it at carefully as "oh they only rig internal polls." It's not rigging polls at all; it's making them more accurate for small segments of the population. Of course there is no rigging at all, it's just easier to show someone hell bent on saying that polls are phony (which is most of the alt-right right now) that it makes no sense to lie to yourself with bad research and spend money less efficiently, than to convince them with a semantic argument where they'll just agree to disagree. This also requires 0 prior knowledge about polling, as it can be easily picked up from the context of the attachment. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On October 25 2016 01:26 Gorsameth wrote: I would argue life is more 'generally decent' in the EU because of social safety nets, tho the self reliance is more lacking. The crisis of the collapsed middle being more real in the rest of the world is also a 'citation needed'. I would argue that the US is not more resilient but that the direction their 'nutters' take it more spread out. Its easy as an outsider to look at the US and lay all the blame for the worlds problems there and find conspiracy theories to match. Its a lot easier to hate on another then onto your own. In the US a lot of them gets deflected into religious cults and the anti-science crowd, which is much less prevalent in the EU. And there is certainly no shortage of conspiracy nuts in the US. From chem-trails to enough people being concerned about a military exercise in Texas being the cover for an occupation to remove their guns by using secret tunnels under Walmart that the Governor had to publicly state that the national guard would keep an eye on it. the anti government far right isnt that threatening to the center, they naturally repel the majority. the kind of threat i had in mind are mass movements doused by ideology/theory of social conflict. that particular statement is moreso an optimistic note about pragmatic, tocqueville america. if we want to go for fine grain accuracy, there are various conflict based movements particularly regionally. as for rest of the world, liberal democracy is the center, while extremism / authoritarianism are pretty much two sides of the same coin. liberal democracy is fragile and path dependent, cannot be taken for granted. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On October 25 2016 00:45 oneofthem wrote: how to fix it? fill the vacuum of explanations for official positions and strategy, rather than relying on poll tested lines. explicate the central strategic motivations and directly address/combat radical ideas at their weak points. the poll tested lines and 'putting up a good image' stuff only work in a time of general tranquility. it defends a territory of normalcy that is being eroded by development of extensive, alternative views of society. take all the state department cables, the wikiHillary speeches, and various leaks from depodesta, you get extreme transparency of the actual top level decisionmaking process. a fair view of the entire batch is that it is remarkably free from corruption and motivated by some sensible and clear strategic concerns. these do not receive coverage by the trivia obsessed media, nor the alternative narrative crafting ideologues. these selective reporting and misrepresentations are not genuine communications but acts of war, and wars harden divisions and make enemies more bitter. the topic of concern is productive activism in the age of radicalization. basic principles of charity and truth in argumentation, rather than ideological fervor, should be the virtues promoted for the sake of both effective activism and effective politics. I agree that an escape from the era of fragmented media must rely on directly addressing and combating ideas. Calling them radical is almost the farce that originally created Trump & allies. If closing the border is racist, why not go full the whole hog and call out the minority degenerates, mass deportations, and repeat offenders? McCain and Romney did well-mannered losing campaigns according to the old set of rules, and that didn't spare them the blistering racist/sexist/homophobe/xenophobe attacks after all. The message couldn't be clearer. They don't want to explain beyond SJW browbeating. They are more than happy to attempt to win elections without white working class or white males in general. They identified their fertile ground for ideas and want to push that demographic to electoral success. Speaking of directly addressing ideas, looking at the leaks and document dumps from a fair view is a compelling tale of corruption. The activism from the left today is marginalization of concerns that are of no concern to them. It's created a class of reflexive Trump voters behind the more vocal populist/nationalist types, and to the side of conservatives without other options at this stage. Maybe you're not fully on board with the Trump agenda, but the massively disqualifying qualities of Clinton are ignored in the press. Your only recourse now is to protest vote, though later it will be reshaping the opposition party or third party actions. The plebiscite is on unaccountable government and government by and for the elites. On October 25 2016 01:37 ticklishmusic wrote: it just boggles my mind that campaigns would lie to themselves w/r/t to polls either internal or external - especially internal or that others would consider it something they would do. a campaign should be making its decisions based on polling data like "oh we're within x points in this area, maybe we could put 200k in ads and overallocate calls to them for a couple weeks to see if we can flip it". deliberately deceiving themselves makes it impossible to do any sort of proper targeting. there is no incentive for it, except for a short term ability to stick your head in the sand. the romney campaign tried unskewing the polls and they were wrong. however, their mistrust was based on some actual analysis. the trump campaign just... makes stuff up. The campaign that prides itself on always winning relies on always winning. The whole point of not campaigning in battleground states and just holding big rallies everywhere is to make that aura. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
And you see similar stories across the nation. Poorer states and underserved white communities underserved by government, local and federal. And they see minorities being listened to by democrats, able to move the government to assist them at the federal and local levels. In reality, they should be offered help and services, but is not what happens. Because as always, it is easier to get the poor and disenfranchised to fight each other, so the Republicans have been more than happy to feed into that. While also making a hard effort rig their districts through gerrymandering and repress the vote of minorities in key states to hold on to power. Trump is caused by a failure of the Republicans to serve the people who vote for them and the Democrats failure to go beyond the demographics they currently need to win. SJW are just the boggyman people blame for why the discourse has become such shit. Every Republican I talk to in person is fine and willing to listen, even if they don’t agree with me. And they are pissed that people like David Duke wormed their way into the spotlight on the back of their party. | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
the downside of globalization etc impacted black workers in the 70-80's, not just the white working class. it's only become a mainstream issue because of the political expression of the white working class to this problem, i.e. trump. within our framework, political cost of redistribution is high. i suggest looking at welfare improving policies in land use, geographic mobility, search and matching. improvements in a lot of these areas can help with unemployment but particularly minority un(der)employment given their lower level of social capital and high transportation cost etc. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510310/npr-politics-podcast Topics included voting fraud and the lack there of, why candidates concede, and general trends they are seeing in responses from women voters in the last month or so. | ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
On October 25 2016 03:02 LegalLord wrote: Rebuilding a new economy that is more robust for the future is much, much harder than dragging your feet on an old system and pretending the "clean coal" unicorn exists. You have to find a lot of investment, get people to accept that they will lose their jobs and possibly get worse ones, and in the case of coal, you also have to put a lot of effort into actually closing the mines (a mine that is neither operational nor properly sealed is going to be an environmental catastrophe shortly). Tough stuff and it always takes one eternity to make the transition. This is especially true if you never try, as can be seen with many former coal towns. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 25 2016 03:10 Trainrunnef wrote: This is especially true if you never try, as can be seen with many former coal towns. You have to consider why they never try though. The wealthier folk don't want to give up their gravy train and won't invest elsewhere, the peasants don't want to lose their jobs and vote accordingly. | ||
|
JinDesu
United States3990 Posts
...ala Detroit... | ||
|
Trainrunnef
United States599 Posts
On October 25 2016 03:10 Plansix wrote: For those who care, the last two episodes of the NPR politics podcast were very good: The weekly round up and mail in questions. http://www.npr.org/podcasts/510310/npr-politics-podcast Topics included voting fraud and the lack there of, why candidates concede, and general trends they are seeing in responses from women voters in the last month or so. Their Divided states series also does a decent job of profiling the voters for both candidates in battleground states. If anyone cares to look. | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28689 Posts
On October 25 2016 00:10 Dan HH wrote: Why is a forum about online games so attractive to conspiracy theorists? Is it me or are they overrepresented here? I think you're entirely wrong about this assessment. I just don't think you understand how prevalent conspiracy theories are within the general population. There really aren't very many posters in this thread who come off as tinfoily - they just really stand out. If you look at something like 911 trutherism (basically the gateway of all conspiracies) however, the numbers are huge. Seems like they've stopped polling this since 2010, but here are some selected entries from the wiki page + Show Spoiler + Canada A September 2008 Angus Reid poll showed that 39 percent of respondents either disagree or are unsure that al-Qaeda carried out the attacks. About a third of those surveyed believed the U.S. government allowed the attacks to happen and 16 percent believe the U.S. government made the attacks happen Germany The WorldPublicOpinion.org opinion poll conducted during the summer of 2008 found that 64 percent of respondents in Germany believe al-Qaeda were responsible. 23 percent said the U.S. government were responsible, 1 percent said Israel and 2 percent named another country. 9 percent said they did not know. US In September 2009, a National Obama Approval Poll, by Public Policy Polling, found that 27 percent of respondents who identified themselves as Liberals, and 10 percent as Conservatives, responded "yes" to the question, "Do you think President Bush intentionally allowed the 9/11 attacks to take place because he wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East?" A March 2010 poll conducted by the Angus Reid Public Opinion organization found that 15 percent of respondents found theories that the World Trade Center was brought down by a controlled demolition to be credible. Anywhere between 6 percent and 15 percent of respondents found credibility in claims that United Airlines Flight 93 was shot down, that no airplanes hit the Pentagon or the World Trade Center. Jordan (lol) A WorldPublicOpinion.org poll conducted between July and September 2008 found that 11 percent of respondents in Jordan believe al-Qaeda were responsible. 17 percent said the U.S. government were responsible, 31 percent said Israel and 4 percent named another country. 36 percent said they did not know. Doubt much more than 5% of posters in this thread buy it however, which would make us about the least tinfoily country on earth. Then there's stuff like birtherism or anti-vaccines, all with significantly higher support in the general population than here. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28689 Posts
This is the kind of nonsense Trump is empowering. It's scary as hell. But the resident Trump supporters are far distant from this brand of crazy - but I find it likely that a pretty decent chunk of the US population has started believing shit like this during the current election cycle. Once you go down the rabbit hole of believing in one grand conspiracy, people generally become really susceptible to more grand conspiracies. The anti-MSM rigged-election statements push people who otherwise used to get their information from fairly normal sources (I just have to say, Fox has impressed me a lot this election, their coverage has been way, way better than I expected from them) towards the lunatics who have been talking about this shit for years. | ||
| ||
