EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5780
| 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. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
Ted Cruz, currently attempting to be the most useless man in congress. Sorry, this was to good not to post. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
the EV's for each state is based on number of reps + senators. in turn, the number of reps depends on total population and senators is always 2. gerrymandering gives republicans who *actually* have less voters the ability to draw districts in shapes where they get the most bang for their buck. dump a lot of dems in a few districts, then draw a few more so there's just enough republicans so in a normal year with an okay candidate that they win the district. therefore, house is super republican despite the dems doing pretty good or winning the popular vote across all elections total. however, you cant gerrymander the electoral college. so you have some states which may send more republicans to congress, but may end up voting dem. there being more dems plus them actually voting in presidential election create the blue wall phenomenon. more or less anyways. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
On October 27 2016 13:09 ticklishmusic wrote: early voting records are being smashed all over the place. maybe robby mook was on to something when he said he expected all time turnout this year... Source on that? | ||
Nakajin
Canada8988 Posts
On October 27 2016 13:09 ticklishmusic wrote: early voting records are being smashed all over the place. maybe robby mook was on to something when he said he expected all time turnout this year... I don't know how much this applies to the US but in Canada early voting is in constant augmentation all around the country and not the overall turnout. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
A bunch from CNN Wisconsin Texas | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
| ||
|
Dan HH
Romania9015 Posts
On October 27 2016 13:09 ticklishmusic wrote: early voting records are being smashed all over the place. maybe robby mook was on to something when he said he expected all time turnout this year... Early voting as a percentage of the total is growing every election, the overall turnout can easily be lower than in the past 2-3 elections while still beating early voting records. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
re: utah, i think mcmuffin could actually win. none of his current voters are going to trump, and MAYBE some more wavering trump voters will go to him. a few clinton voters might vote mcmuffin too b/c he's got a better shot than her, but theyre not going to switch to trump. feel the mcmentum. | ||
|
Probe1
United States17920 Posts
<3 Thanks ticklish I'm actually a bit surprised that it's only 7+ million so far. I must live in a pocket that isn't very representative. My family and friends have voted early for years. It's such a no brainer that none of us see it as unusual in any way. Why go to a crowded place, stand in a booth, try to remember the names of the candidates you researched, and all this discomfort when you can have it mailed to you and fill it out at your desk then mail it back? | ||
Falling
Canada11272 Posts
On October 27 2016 11:09 PhoenixVoid wrote: On this Jesus topic, I find Supply-Side Jesus a somewhat relevant comic to search up. Okay, that is legitimately funny- basically Ayn Rand meets the Prosperity Gospel... only in the affluent West is there such a distortion. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On October 27 2016 14:19 Falling wrote: Okay, that is legitimately funny- basically Ayn Rand meets the Prosperity Gospel... only in the affluent West is there such a distortion. Unsure what you just pulled me into but I am thankful for it. | ||
|
JumboJohnson
537 Posts
On October 27 2016 13:33 LegalLord wrote: I'm interested in seeing if Utah will go third party this year. The likelihood is almost even right now. Myself and several friends are waiting til a little closer to the election to see what the polls for Utah are. Then we are going to vote for whowever is leading who isn't trump. I never thought I'd see Utah be a "swing" state. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On October 27 2016 14:41 JumboJohnson wrote: Myself and several friends are waiting til a little closer to the election to see what the polls for Utah are and are going to vote whowever is leading who isn't trump. I never thought I'd see Utah be a "swing" state. Hillary has the worst chance of the three at this point. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States22694 Posts
On October 27 2016 13:33 LegalLord wrote: I'm interested in seeing if Utah will go third party this year. The likelihood is almost even right now. Would be pretty funny for Utah and our elector out in WA throw it to the house. Would be interesting to see that fight play out. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On October 27 2016 14:43 LegalLord wrote: Hillary has the worst chance of the three at this point. Not surprisingly, when peoples' motivation for voting for Hillary is "not Trump", they jump ship when another legitimate "not Trump" option appears. | ||
|
JumboJohnson
537 Posts
On October 27 2016 14:47 TheYango wrote: Not surprisingly, when peoples' motivation for voting for Hillary is "not Trump", they jump ship when another legitimate "not Trump" option appears. I wouldn't say that, in fact personally I'm a hillary backer (liberal supreme court), but when it comes down to it we all think trump is a clown. And being in Utah it's more of a strategic vote. Not a lot of hillary fans out here | ||
|
ChristianS
United States3187 Posts
It seems to me that one of the central beliefs of the Trump movement is that Donald Trump is some kind of brilliant political tactician. You know, the Scott Adams theory that he's some sort of Master Persuader playing n-dimensional chess while we're all still thinking in simple 2 dimensions. And there's definitely some truth to the idea that dispassionate policy discussion and pure logical thinking have very little to do with how people vote. In reality winning elections is mostly about marketing, and there is a lot of room for slick politicians to apply some good salesman techniques and convince some voters without facts or rational arguments ever coming into play. What I don't understand is the basis for thinking Trump is particularly good at it. I mean, politics 101 is "Stay on message." You've got messaging you're putting out, that message is how you're going to win the election, so whatever the conversation is about, just keep bringing the subject back to your message. Bill Clinton was always fantastic at this – they didn't just call him "Slick Willy" because of Monica Lewinski. Trump is absolutely terrible at staying on message. I can't think of many presidential candidates who were worse (maybe Rand Paul?). The debates are full of perfect examples, the first that comes to mind is the first debate question about cybersecurity. It's not hard to think what Trump's message would be there, or how to get to it: something along the lines of "You know, cyber security is becoming a more and more important issue in keeping America safe, and I hate to say it, but my opponent has an absolutely terrible track record on cyber security. It's a disaster. I mean, she kept all of her e-mails as SoS on a private server where anybody – foreign governments, anybody – could hack them and learn all our national secrets." Maybe even make the argument that all the leaked stuff – DNC leaks, Podesta leaks, etc. – is further evidence that she simply cannot keep electronic information safe. I would think from a persuasion standpoint, if you know that more and more leaks are going to keep coming out and making headlines, it would be terrific to create a mental connection between Hillary-related e-mail leaks and the idea that Hillary can't keep us safe, so that every time a new leak made headlines, it would subliminally reinforce your messaging about Hillary not keeping the country safe. Instead he prattled on and on about a ten year old who's really good at cyber or something, none of which gave anyone a compelling reason to vote either for him, or against Clinton. It really does seem like Trump is making this up as he goes along, and that he's pretty hit-or-miss on the persuasion front. How can Trump supporters look at something like this and see a master tactician? | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5276 Posts
| ||
| ||
