|
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. |
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
trump's 'team' was made up of republican outcasts, people with legal problems, and general nutters. (in the case of flynn, literally for both)
the question is who else is running the show besides the cabinet, how much that cabinet would have control.
but the constant should be a war against regulation
|
On November 10 2016 04:03 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 03:52 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2016 03:42 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:37 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2016 03:30 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:25 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 03:23 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:20 TheYango wrote:On November 10 2016 03:07 BigFan wrote:On November 10 2016 02:44 Jormundr wrote:Also this is probably the most realistic explanation of this election I've seen so far. Point #3 hits very close to home. extremely well written article. Recommend everyone to read it. So the question going forward is--if a Trump presidency is an expression of rural America's discontent, then how will a Trump presidency fix that discontent? Rural America has been left behind by the rest of the country. But this is not an easy problem to solve, and certainly not one that's solvable by even the best possible president. Were things better for them in the 50s and 60s? Probably. But we can't go back to the 50s and 60s. The rest of the world isn't going to shift back in time for us. What we have to be doing is coping with how technology and the rest of the world are changing America, and that unfortunately also means a huge shift in America's economy toward urban centers. No amount of protectionist trade policy is going to be able to reverse that shift. I understand that rural America is discontent with the way things are in 2016, but it's not clear to me where the way forward is, especially with their deeply-ingrained aversion toward far-left progressive welfare reform. Maybe someone with a better understanding of these things has a clearer understanding of where we go from here and can explain it to me (preferably with the smallest possible amount of condescension or right-wing rose-tinted glasses). I would also like to understand how rural America votes for a billionaire with friends such as Mnuchin and Icahn, and doesn't see the irony. He spoke to the issues they wanted addressed in a way no one else did and for that they were willing to look past everything else. Yeah, it always astonishes me how the GOP not only gets away with talking to working class Americans whilst being on the board of Chevron/Halliburton at the same time, but also thrives from it. You have to admire these marketing skills. You think Hillary's the one to make sure the GOP doesn't get away with it? The Dems were uniquely unqualified to criticize, with a lawyer that hitched her wagon to a rising star and made millions in a time she remembers being dead broke. So Trump doing the plain-talk schtick on reality TV did cement his image as friend of the working class. How more removed can you get from rural america than mincing words about the plight of victim groups A-G? I was referring to a long-term tendency that harks back to at least Dick Cheney, not just this election. Just be gracious in victory. Gore and Kerry are at least as good of, if not better examples of, candidates that had issues being the alternative for the supposedly fatcat GOP names. It doesn't take marketing when it's Bush vs Gore back in the days when white males didn't split so strongly and unions still had great influence for Dems. I've been reading my twitter feed of the least self-reflective Clinton supporters I can possibly imagine. They tell me the problem was Americans, not Hillary. After about the hundredth slam on dumb inbreds electing a Hitler-Mussolini-Nixon orange Frankenstein, the grace takes a bit of a hike for the next guy that says he pulled the wool over our eyes. Let's hear it for a return of inward criticism before playing the Trump card and blaming your version of China for electoral losses. I'm trying to understand what in the hell has happened really rather than being partisan ( no US passport myself, no skin in that game ). All the prediction models I've read with Hillary 80%+ chance were mathematically okay, Drew Linzer's in particular. This means the input data was wrong. I don't believe in generalized sampling error. It either means there is a turnout anomaly, or people say one thing and then vote for another ( the infamous 'shy Trump' vote ). It's fascinating to try and understand what happened there - there doesn't have to be an issue with Americans if the 'fringe' candidate had circa 30% of total votes just like in every other country, but they all showed up.
Trump won because he flipped Suburban, College Educated, White voters between the last set of polls taken and the polling booth.
There will be a great deal of talk about whether Democrats ignoring (some would say actively berating and discriminating against) the white working class backfired (it did), about racism, sexism, etc. But in the end we have to consider that between Oct 31, and Nov 8, millions of these suburban middle-to-upper-middle-class voters received notices in the mail saying they were either: 1) Going to choose a new healthcare plan because their plan was being discontinued; or 2) Would be paying 20%+ more for their plan next year. That is what turned the collar counties from 60% Clinton to 50/50, thus, dooming her candidacy.
|
On November 10 2016 04:13 ZasZ. wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 04:11 Dan HH wrote:On November 10 2016 03:48 Half the Sky wrote:On November 10 2016 03:30 CosmicSpiral wrote:
He wasn't part of the "establishment" in Washington, and so passed off his wealth as proof he wouldn't be paid off or influenced by lobbyists in Washington. Rural America doesn't hate the rich, more the social and cultural associations with having money + urban attitudes. If any of the following is true, then this shortlist shows they have been completely duped. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/who-is-in-president-trump-cabinet-231071Names as mentioned on the shortlist: Newt Gingrich (possibly Sec State) Rudy Giuliani (AG???) Chris Christie (isn't this guy under investigation????) like those three alone shoots the anti-establishment thing out of the water. Sessions/Talent for DoD Sarah Palin for Interior (!!!) This can't be real, it's the absolute worst of the GOP. Even Cruz would have a saner team What do you mean it can't be real? These are precisely the people he surrounded himself with during his campaign, and who advised him on everything. This list is infinitely more likely than any other, and the reason why these pissants sucked up to him throughout the campaign.
Agreed. Honestly, if Christie hadn't royally screwed over my state so unbelievably badly as governor, I would feel sorry for him if Trump snuffed him.
|
Trump is loyal to his people. He'll give all of his early supporters something. Sessions, in particular, is going to have his pick of cabinet posts.
|
On November 10 2016 04:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 04:03 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:52 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2016 03:42 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:37 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2016 03:30 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:25 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 03:23 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:20 TheYango wrote:On November 10 2016 03:07 BigFan wrote:
[quote]
extremely well written article. Recommend everyone to read it. So the question going forward is--if a Trump presidency is an expression of rural America's discontent, then how will a Trump presidency fix that discontent? Rural America has been left behind by the rest of the country. But this is not an easy problem to solve, and certainly not one that's solvable by even the best possible president. Were things better for them in the 50s and 60s? Probably. But we can't go back to the 50s and 60s. The rest of the world isn't going to shift back in time for us. What we have to be doing is coping with how technology and the rest of the world are changing America, and that unfortunately also means a huge shift in America's economy toward urban centers. No amount of protectionist trade policy is going to be able to reverse that shift. I understand that rural America is discontent with the way things are in 2016, but it's not clear to me where the way forward is, especially with their deeply-ingrained aversion toward far-left progressive welfare reform. Maybe someone with a better understanding of these things has a clearer understanding of where we go from here and can explain it to me (preferably with the smallest possible amount of condescension or right-wing rose-tinted glasses). I would also like to understand how rural America votes for a billionaire with friends such as Mnuchin and Icahn, and doesn't see the irony. He spoke to the issues they wanted addressed in a way no one else did and for that they were willing to look past everything else. Yeah, it always astonishes me how the GOP not only gets away with talking to working class Americans whilst being on the board of Chevron/Halliburton at the same time, but also thrives from it. You have to admire these marketing skills. You think Hillary's the one to make sure the GOP doesn't get away with it? The Dems were uniquely unqualified to criticize, with a lawyer that hitched her wagon to a rising star and made millions in a time she remembers being dead broke. So Trump doing the plain-talk schtick on reality TV did cement his image as friend of the working class. How more removed can you get from rural america than mincing words about the plight of victim groups A-G? I was referring to a long-term tendency that harks back to at least Dick Cheney, not just this election. Just be gracious in victory. Gore and Kerry are at least as good of, if not better examples of, candidates that had issues being the alternative for the supposedly fatcat GOP names. It doesn't take marketing when it's Bush vs Gore back in the days when white males didn't split so strongly and unions still had great influence for Dems. I've been reading my twitter feed of the least self-reflective Clinton supporters I can possibly imagine. They tell me the problem was Americans, not Hillary. After about the hundredth slam on dumb inbreds electing a Hitler-Mussolini-Nixon orange Frankenstein, the grace takes a bit of a hike for the next guy that says he pulled the wool over our eyes. Let's hear it for a return of inward criticism before playing the Trump card and blaming your version of China for electoral losses. I'm trying to understand what in the hell has happened really rather than being partisan ( no US passport myself, no skin in that game ). All the prediction models I've read with Hillary 80%+ chance were mathematically okay, Drew Linzer's in particular. This means the input data was wrong. I don't believe in generalized sampling error. It either means there is a turnout anomaly, or people say one thing and then vote for another ( the infamous 'shy Trump' vote ). It's fascinating to try and understand what happened there - there doesn't have to be an issue with Americans if the 'fringe' candidate had circa 30% of total votes just like in every other country, but they all showed up. Even if the 80% probabilities were accurate, there's still a 1 in 5 chance of Trump winning. It's not zero. Even in 538's prediction timeline there were margins of error that easily accounted for Trump winning the electoral college- even when Hillary was at like 75% win chance.
I fully agree. What I'm saying is we are looking at opinion polls, which makes the huge implicit assumption that 1. people turn out in the same proportion they disclose and 2. they don't lie.
Have this thought experiment : in a 100% turnout world ( you turnout or your vote gets taken away ), if people don't lie, there is no scenario in which Hillary loses assuming she has been measured with a 44%-41% lead nationally. She wins in 100% of cases.
But if 55% percent of the people show up, all of a sudden, we are very vulnerable to which guys actually turn out. Trump wins in 40% of scenarios roughly. But the polls have stayed the same. In particular if there is correlation between turnout and opinion, that potentially trumps ( pardon the pun ) any edge Clinton might have had in the phone polls. And pollsters don't look at it and then are left wondering.
TLDR low turnout makes democracy vulnerable to populism, and can confound pollsters. It's not rocket science. Is this what happened here ? There was a webpage that said you can win the Electoral College with 23% of voters.
|
On November 10 2016 03:01 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 02:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump already backed off the building of a Wall with Mexico including backing off getting Mexico to pay for it. I think he talked it down for the sake of the election, but his supporters are going to hold him to building it. He's already going to be walking back a lot of other things ("LOCK HER UP!!!!"), so he better build the wall.
Do you realize that the wall shit is:
a. Not really doable. It would be INSANELY expensive (we are talking around 20 billion dollars), get the gvt into endless legal problems and be a nightmare to maintain.
b. Completely, utterly useless. Illegal immigrant come in an overwhelming majority to the US with a tourist visa.
I get that the wall crap is a very exciting prospect for his supporters and a great symbol of what he represents, but it makes 0 sense on every single level. Like, everything he has promised and all his platform.
But since it was a fact free campaign, I guess it will be a fact free presidency, and I already bought the popcorns and wait eagerly to see what happens in that little alternate universe of his.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On November 10 2016 04:09 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 04:07 oneofthem wrote:On November 10 2016 04:03 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:52 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2016 03:42 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:37 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2016 03:30 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:25 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 03:23 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:20 TheYango wrote:
[quote]
So the question going forward is--if a Trump presidency is an expression of rural America's discontent, then how will a Trump presidency fix that discontent?
Rural America has been left behind by the rest of the country. But this is not an easy problem to solve, and certainly not one that's solvable by even the best possible president. Were things better for them in the 50s and 60s? Probably. But we can't go back to the 50s and 60s. The rest of the world isn't going to shift back in time for us. What we have to be doing is coping with how technology and the rest of the world are changing America, and that unfortunately also means a huge shift in America's economy toward urban centers. No amount of protectionist trade policy is going to be able to reverse that shift.
I understand that rural America is discontent with the way things are in 2016, but it's not clear to me where the way forward is, especially with their deeply-ingrained aversion toward far-left progressive welfare reform. Maybe someone with a better understanding of these things has a clearer understanding of where we go from here and can explain it to me (preferably with the smallest possible amount of condescension or right-wing rose-tinted glasses). I would also like to understand how rural America votes for a billionaire with friends such as Mnuchin and Icahn, and doesn't see the irony. He spoke to the issues they wanted addressed in a way no one else did and for that they were willing to look past everything else. Yeah, it always astonishes me how the GOP not only gets away with talking to working class Americans whilst being on the board of Chevron/Halliburton at the same time, but also thrives from it. You have to admire these marketing skills. You think Hillary's the one to make sure the GOP doesn't get away with it? The Dems were uniquely unqualified to criticize, with a lawyer that hitched her wagon to a rising star and made millions in a time she remembers being dead broke. So Trump doing the plain-talk schtick on reality TV did cement his image as friend of the working class. How more removed can you get from rural america than mincing words about the plight of victim groups A-G? I was referring to a long-term tendency that harks back to at least Dick Cheney, not just this election. Just be gracious in victory. Gore and Kerry are at least as good of, if not better examples of, candidates that had issues being the alternative for the supposedly fatcat GOP names. It doesn't take marketing when it's Bush vs Gore back in the days when white males didn't split so strongly and unions still had great influence for Dems. I've been reading my twitter feed of the least self-reflective Clinton supporters I can possibly imagine. They tell me the problem was Americans, not Hillary. After about the hundredth slam on dumb inbreds electing a Hitler-Mussolini-Nixon orange Frankenstein, the grace takes a bit of a hike for the next guy that says he pulled the wool over our eyes. Let's hear it for a return of inward criticism before playing the Trump card and blaming your version of China for electoral losses. I'm trying to understand what in the hell has happened really rather than being partisan ( no US passport myself, no skin in that game ). All the prediction models I've read with Hillary 80%+ chance were mathematically okay, Drew Linzer's in particular. This means the input data was wrong. I don't believe in generalized sampling error. It either means there is a turnout anomaly, or people say one thing and then vote for another ( the infamous 'shy Trump' vote ). It's fascinating to try and understand what happened there - there doesn't have to be an issue with Americans if the 'fringe' candidate had circa 30% of total votes just like in every other country, but they all showed up. the contrast between internet and in-person interview is instructive for this one. although, i think there are different dynamics at play in rural vs suburban. Yes thanks, I'm sure this is going to be discussed at length in the coming days, or the whole polling industry is out of a job. Any data/link on this would be welcome.
the basic data is that trump generally outperformed interview polls in online polls. other people have said that this difference is more true in red states vs blue states, a proxy for rural/urban divide i guess.
the particular dynamic of trump plays a bit into this too. social stigma of supporting scandalous candidate could generate a response bias in live interviews. it's one source of potential systemic bias in the input data
|
On November 10 2016 04:17 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 04:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 10 2016 04:03 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:52 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2016 03:42 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:37 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2016 03:30 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:25 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 03:23 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:20 TheYango wrote:
[quote]
So the question going forward is--if a Trump presidency is an expression of rural America's discontent, then how will a Trump presidency fix that discontent?
Rural America has been left behind by the rest of the country. But this is not an easy problem to solve, and certainly not one that's solvable by even the best possible president. Were things better for them in the 50s and 60s? Probably. But we can't go back to the 50s and 60s. The rest of the world isn't going to shift back in time for us. What we have to be doing is coping with how technology and the rest of the world are changing America, and that unfortunately also means a huge shift in America's economy toward urban centers. No amount of protectionist trade policy is going to be able to reverse that shift.
I understand that rural America is discontent with the way things are in 2016, but it's not clear to me where the way forward is, especially with their deeply-ingrained aversion toward far-left progressive welfare reform. Maybe someone with a better understanding of these things has a clearer understanding of where we go from here and can explain it to me (preferably with the smallest possible amount of condescension or right-wing rose-tinted glasses). I would also like to understand how rural America votes for a billionaire with friends such as Mnuchin and Icahn, and doesn't see the irony. He spoke to the issues they wanted addressed in a way no one else did and for that they were willing to look past everything else. Yeah, it always astonishes me how the GOP not only gets away with talking to working class Americans whilst being on the board of Chevron/Halliburton at the same time, but also thrives from it. You have to admire these marketing skills. You think Hillary's the one to make sure the GOP doesn't get away with it? The Dems were uniquely unqualified to criticize, with a lawyer that hitched her wagon to a rising star and made millions in a time she remembers being dead broke. So Trump doing the plain-talk schtick on reality TV did cement his image as friend of the working class. How more removed can you get from rural america than mincing words about the plight of victim groups A-G? I was referring to a long-term tendency that harks back to at least Dick Cheney, not just this election. Just be gracious in victory. Gore and Kerry are at least as good of, if not better examples of, candidates that had issues being the alternative for the supposedly fatcat GOP names. It doesn't take marketing when it's Bush vs Gore back in the days when white males didn't split so strongly and unions still had great influence for Dems. I've been reading my twitter feed of the least self-reflective Clinton supporters I can possibly imagine. They tell me the problem was Americans, not Hillary. After about the hundredth slam on dumb inbreds electing a Hitler-Mussolini-Nixon orange Frankenstein, the grace takes a bit of a hike for the next guy that says he pulled the wool over our eyes. Let's hear it for a return of inward criticism before playing the Trump card and blaming your version of China for electoral losses. I'm trying to understand what in the hell has happened really rather than being partisan ( no US passport myself, no skin in that game ). All the prediction models I've read with Hillary 80%+ chance were mathematically okay, Drew Linzer's in particular. This means the input data was wrong. I don't believe in generalized sampling error. It either means there is a turnout anomaly, or people say one thing and then vote for another ( the infamous 'shy Trump' vote ). It's fascinating to try and understand what happened there - there doesn't have to be an issue with Americans if the 'fringe' candidate had circa 30% of total votes just like in every other country, but they all showed up. Even if the 80% probabilities were accurate, there's still a 1 in 5 chance of Trump winning. It's not zero. Even in 538's prediction timeline there were margins of error that easily accounted for Trump winning the electoral college- even when Hillary was at like 75% win chance. I fully agree. What I'm saying is we are looking at opinion polls, which makes the huge implicit assumption that 1. people turn out in the same proportion Have this thought experiment : in a 100% turnout world ( you turnout or your vote gets taken away ), if people don't lie, there is no scenario in which Hillary loses assuming she has been measured with a 44%-41% lead nationally. She wins in 100% of cases. But if 55% percent of the people show up, all of a sudden, we are very vulnerable to which guys actually turn out. Trump wins in 40% of scenarios roughly. But the polls have stayed the same. In particular if there is correlation between turnout and opinion, that potentially trumps ( pardon the pun ) any edge Clinton might have had in the phone polls. And pollsters don't look at it and then are left wondering. TLDR low turnout makes democracy vulnerable to populism, and can confound pollsters. It's not rocket science. Is this what happened here ? There was a webpage that said you can win the Electoral College with 23% of voters.
Low turn out is exactly what happened here. It looks like Trump will win with less votes than McCain or Romney, who lost. Clinton was such a terrible candidate that it didn't matter that Trump was on the other side.
I place 50 percent of the blame for this on the people who actually voted for the man, which I can't understand, and the other 50 percent on the DNC for propping up a terrible candidate and refusing to look at any others.
|
On November 10 2016 04:09 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 04:03 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:52 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2016 03:42 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:37 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2016 03:30 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:25 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 03:23 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:20 TheYango wrote:On November 10 2016 03:07 BigFan wrote:
[quote]
extremely well written article. Recommend everyone to read it. So the question going forward is--if a Trump presidency is an expression of rural America's discontent, then how will a Trump presidency fix that discontent? Rural America has been left behind by the rest of the country. But this is not an easy problem to solve, and certainly not one that's solvable by even the best possible president. Were things better for them in the 50s and 60s? Probably. But we can't go back to the 50s and 60s. The rest of the world isn't going to shift back in time for us. What we have to be doing is coping with how technology and the rest of the world are changing America, and that unfortunately also means a huge shift in America's economy toward urban centers. No amount of protectionist trade policy is going to be able to reverse that shift. I understand that rural America is discontent with the way things are in 2016, but it's not clear to me where the way forward is, especially with their deeply-ingrained aversion toward far-left progressive welfare reform. Maybe someone with a better understanding of these things has a clearer understanding of where we go from here and can explain it to me (preferably with the smallest possible amount of condescension or right-wing rose-tinted glasses). I would also like to understand how rural America votes for a billionaire with friends such as Mnuchin and Icahn, and doesn't see the irony. He spoke to the issues they wanted addressed in a way no one else did and for that they were willing to look past everything else. Yeah, it always astonishes me how the GOP not only gets away with talking to working class Americans whilst being on the board of Chevron/Halliburton at the same time, but also thrives from it. You have to admire these marketing skills. You think Hillary's the one to make sure the GOP doesn't get away with it? The Dems were uniquely unqualified to criticize, with a lawyer that hitched her wagon to a rising star and made millions in a time she remembers being dead broke. So Trump doing the plain-talk schtick on reality TV did cement his image as friend of the working class. How more removed can you get from rural america than mincing words about the plight of victim groups A-G? I was referring to a long-term tendency that harks back to at least Dick Cheney, not just this election. Just be gracious in victory. Gore and Kerry are at least as good of, if not better examples of, candidates that had issues being the alternative for the supposedly fatcat GOP names. It doesn't take marketing when it's Bush vs Gore back in the days when white males didn't split so strongly and unions still had great influence for Dems. I've been reading my twitter feed of the least self-reflective Clinton supporters I can possibly imagine. They tell me the problem was Americans, not Hillary. After about the hundredth slam on dumb inbreds electing a Hitler-Mussolini-Nixon orange Frankenstein, the grace takes a bit of a hike for the next guy that says he pulled the wool over our eyes. Let's hear it for a return of inward criticism before playing the Trump card and blaming your version of China for electoral losses. I'm trying to understand what in the hell has happened really rather than being partisan ( no US passport myself, no skin in that game ). All the prediction models I've read with Hillary 80%+ chance were mathematically okay, Drew Linzer's in particular. This means the input data was wrong. I don't believe in generalized sampling error. It either means there is a turnout anomaly, or people say one thing and then vote for another ( the infamous 'shy Trump' vote ). It's fascinating to try and understand what happened there - there doesn't have to be an issue with Americans if the 'fringe' candidate had circa 30% of total votes just like in every other country, but they all showed up. Even if the 80% probabilities were accurate, there's still a 1 in 5 chance of Trump winning. It's not zero. Even in 538's prediction timeline there were margins of error that easily accounted for Trump winning the electoral college- even when Hillary was at like 75% win chance.
The 538 Model seemed pretty reasonably accurate. 70% chance for being up 3-4 seems pretty reasonable. Going from 3-4 points up to 1-2 points up is a pretty small miss. It just happens to be the difference between the 70% outcome and the 30%.
|
On November 10 2016 04:03 MyLovelyLurker wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 03:52 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2016 03:42 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:37 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2016 03:30 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:25 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 03:23 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:20 TheYango wrote:On November 10 2016 03:07 BigFan wrote:On November 10 2016 02:44 Jormundr wrote:Also this is probably the most realistic explanation of this election I've seen so far. Point #3 hits very close to home. extremely well written article. Recommend everyone to read it. So the question going forward is--if a Trump presidency is an expression of rural America's discontent, then how will a Trump presidency fix that discontent? Rural America has been left behind by the rest of the country. But this is not an easy problem to solve, and certainly not one that's solvable by even the best possible president. Were things better for them in the 50s and 60s? Probably. But we can't go back to the 50s and 60s. The rest of the world isn't going to shift back in time for us. What we have to be doing is coping with how technology and the rest of the world are changing America, and that unfortunately also means a huge shift in America's economy toward urban centers. No amount of protectionist trade policy is going to be able to reverse that shift. I understand that rural America is discontent with the way things are in 2016, but it's not clear to me where the way forward is, especially with their deeply-ingrained aversion toward far-left progressive welfare reform. Maybe someone with a better understanding of these things has a clearer understanding of where we go from here and can explain it to me (preferably with the smallest possible amount of condescension or right-wing rose-tinted glasses). I would also like to understand how rural America votes for a billionaire with friends such as Mnuchin and Icahn, and doesn't see the irony. He spoke to the issues they wanted addressed in a way no one else did and for that they were willing to look past everything else. Yeah, it always astonishes me how the GOP not only gets away with talking to working class Americans whilst being on the board of Chevron/Halliburton at the same time, but also thrives from it. You have to admire these marketing skills. You think Hillary's the one to make sure the GOP doesn't get away with it? The Dems were uniquely unqualified to criticize, with a lawyer that hitched her wagon to a rising star and made millions in a time she remembers being dead broke. So Trump doing the plain-talk schtick on reality TV did cement his image as friend of the working class. How more removed can you get from rural america than mincing words about the plight of victim groups A-G? I was referring to a long-term tendency that harks back to at least Dick Cheney, not just this election. Just be gracious in victory. Gore and Kerry are at least as good of, if not better examples of, candidates that had issues being the alternative for the supposedly fatcat GOP names. It doesn't take marketing when it's Bush vs Gore back in the days when white males didn't split so strongly and unions still had great influence for Dems. I've been reading my twitter feed of the least self-reflective Clinton supporters I can possibly imagine. They tell me the problem was Americans, not Hillary. After about the hundredth slam on dumb inbreds electing a Hitler-Mussolini-Nixon orange Frankenstein, the grace takes a bit of a hike for the next guy that says he pulled the wool over our eyes. Let's hear it for a return of inward criticism before playing the Trump card and blaming your version of China for electoral losses. I'm trying to understand what in the hell has happened really rather than being partisan ( no US passport myself, no skin in that game ). All the prediction models I've read with Hillary 80%+ chance were mathematically okay, Drew Linzer's in particular. This means the input data was wrong. I don't believe in generalized sampling error. It either means there is a turnout anomaly, or people say one thing and then vote for another ( the infamous 'shy Trump' vote ). It's fascinating to try and understand what happened there - there doesn't have to be an issue with Americans if the 'fringe' candidate had circa 30% of total votes just like in every other country, but they all showed up.
1. Undecided voters broke decisively for Trump. And there were a lot of them.
2. Polls are dependent on an accurate model of "likely voters." This severely underestimated the rural vote for Trump and how much liberals were not willing to tow the Hillary line.
This is by all means an upset but it's not unfathomable.
|
On November 10 2016 04:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 04:03 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:52 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2016 03:42 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:37 Danglars wrote:On November 10 2016 03:30 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:25 LegalLord wrote:On November 10 2016 03:23 MyLovelyLurker wrote:On November 10 2016 03:20 TheYango wrote:On November 10 2016 03:07 BigFan wrote:
[quote]
extremely well written article. Recommend everyone to read it. So the question going forward is--if a Trump presidency is an expression of rural America's discontent, then how will a Trump presidency fix that discontent? Rural America has been left behind by the rest of the country. But this is not an easy problem to solve, and certainly not one that's solvable by even the best possible president. Were things better for them in the 50s and 60s? Probably. But we can't go back to the 50s and 60s. The rest of the world isn't going to shift back in time for us. What we have to be doing is coping with how technology and the rest of the world are changing America, and that unfortunately also means a huge shift in America's economy toward urban centers. No amount of protectionist trade policy is going to be able to reverse that shift. I understand that rural America is discontent with the way things are in 2016, but it's not clear to me where the way forward is, especially with their deeply-ingrained aversion toward far-left progressive welfare reform. Maybe someone with a better understanding of these things has a clearer understanding of where we go from here and can explain it to me (preferably with the smallest possible amount of condescension or right-wing rose-tinted glasses). I would also like to understand how rural America votes for a billionaire with friends such as Mnuchin and Icahn, and doesn't see the irony. He spoke to the issues they wanted addressed in a way no one else did and for that they were willing to look past everything else. Yeah, it always astonishes me how the GOP not only gets away with talking to working class Americans whilst being on the board of Chevron/Halliburton at the same time, but also thrives from it. You have to admire these marketing skills. You think Hillary's the one to make sure the GOP doesn't get away with it? The Dems were uniquely unqualified to criticize, with a lawyer that hitched her wagon to a rising star and made millions in a time she remembers being dead broke. So Trump doing the plain-talk schtick on reality TV did cement his image as friend of the working class. How more removed can you get from rural america than mincing words about the plight of victim groups A-G? I was referring to a long-term tendency that harks back to at least Dick Cheney, not just this election. Just be gracious in victory. Gore and Kerry are at least as good of, if not better examples of, candidates that had issues being the alternative for the supposedly fatcat GOP names. It doesn't take marketing when it's Bush vs Gore back in the days when white males didn't split so strongly and unions still had great influence for Dems. I've been reading my twitter feed of the least self-reflective Clinton supporters I can possibly imagine. They tell me the problem was Americans, not Hillary. After about the hundredth slam on dumb inbreds electing a Hitler-Mussolini-Nixon orange Frankenstein, the grace takes a bit of a hike for the next guy that says he pulled the wool over our eyes. Let's hear it for a return of inward criticism before playing the Trump card and blaming your version of China for electoral losses. I'm trying to understand what in the hell has happened really rather than being partisan ( no US passport myself, no skin in that game ). All the prediction models I've read with Hillary 80%+ chance were mathematically okay, Drew Linzer's in particular. This means the input data was wrong. I don't believe in generalized sampling error. It either means there is a turnout anomaly, or people say one thing and then vote for another ( the infamous 'shy Trump' vote ). It's fascinating to try and understand what happened there - there doesn't have to be an issue with Americans if the 'fringe' candidate had circa 30% of total votes just like in every other country, but they all showed up. I suggest you consider the possibility that Clinton was more of a fringe candidate than even Trump. Check the exit polls on what factors most influenced the voter's decision. A week of solid study of primary sources apart from secondary journalism editorial will do you more good than the partisans in the thread and the people you suspect of being too partisan to be helpful. American politics and political center (call it heart & soul if you wish) is very much different than Europe's, and so too is our fringe.
I'm not gonna debate you on definitions. Any candidate who paints a whole country in such broad strokes as to call them 'rapists' is fringe/populist in my European-centric view, yes. If you have detailed and informative links to the breakdown of votes, I'll take those.
|
re: Trump's cabinet, all the "sane" members left his team or left and then tried to make up. but most people don't vote for the cabinet, they vote for the name on the ticket. so we shouldn't surprised that people don't know or don't care about the cabinet being awful. that's the price you pay.
|
On November 10 2016 04:16 xDaunt wrote:
Trump is loyal to his people. He'll give all of his early supporters something. Sessions, in particular, is going to have his pick of cabinet posts.
The great question is whether or not Pierson will be Secretary of State.
I'm waiting really hard for those people to become "the establishment". Don't get me wrong, I am sad for all of us, but I think we are up for some real US made entertainment in the following years.
|
On November 10 2016 03:39 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 03:29 BigFan wrote:On November 10 2016 03:27 Reaps wrote:On November 10 2016 03:24 VayneAuthority wrote:On November 10 2016 02:43 Acrofales wrote:Plansix was just temp banned for 90 days by Sn0_Man.
That account was created on 2011-04-03 05:22:58 and had 14501 posts.
Reason: By Request
For those wondering what happened to P6. This is going to be a very quiet thread once all the election heat dies down, with both kwark and p6 banned. With all of kwizach's talk about a banbet, I'm surprised he's still here. Fiwifaki must be kicking himself for squeeming out of that money bet, though. plansix is the quintessential "I have no idea if i voted correctly, but at least he's gone" Why anyone has to be as unpleasant as he is, is beyond me. Plansix took a banbet? looks like he asked for it himself, maybe to avoid discussing politics and cool down after the defeat? Trully a great day, getting rid of him on top of getting rid of Hillary. User was temp banned for this post.
seriously? He gets banned for that when entire topic is filled with with condescending and way more aggressive comments towards trump supporters. Always knew TL is bastion of liberal propaganda but this is ridiculous
|
I don't even know if it's the shadow trump vote for the reason that polling was so far off, there was something fundamentally wrong with the methodology. Clinton had a 4 point lead in aggregated polls going into election night, then gets blown out.
|
On November 10 2016 04:22 kongoline wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 03:39 NukeD wrote:On November 10 2016 03:29 BigFan wrote:On November 10 2016 03:27 Reaps wrote:On November 10 2016 03:24 VayneAuthority wrote:On November 10 2016 02:43 Acrofales wrote:Plansix was just temp banned for 90 days by Sn0_Man.
That account was created on 2011-04-03 05:22:58 and had 14501 posts.
Reason: By Request
For those wondering what happened to P6. This is going to be a very quiet thread once all the election heat dies down, with both kwark and p6 banned. With all of kwizach's talk about a banbet, I'm surprised he's still here. Fiwifaki must be kicking himself for squeeming out of that money bet, though. plansix is the quintessential "I have no idea if i voted correctly, but at least he's gone" Why anyone has to be as unpleasant as he is, is beyond me. Plansix took a banbet? looks like he asked for it himself, maybe to avoid discussing politics and cool down after the defeat? Trully a great day, getting rid of him on top of getting rid of Hillary. User was temp banned for this post. seriously? He gets banned for that when entire topic is filled with with condescending and way more aggressive comments towards trump supporters. Always knew TL is bastion of liberal propaganda but this is ridiculous
Take it to the feedback thread.
|
On November 10 2016 04:22 biology]major wrote:
I don't even know if it's the shadow trump vote for the reason that polling was so far off, there was something fundamentally wrong with the methodology. Clinton had a 4 point lead in aggregated polls going into election night, then gets blown out.
They failed to account for how strong Trump was with his base and how weak Hillary was with hers.
|
On November 10 2016 04:17 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 03:01 xDaunt wrote:On November 10 2016 02:58 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Trump already backed off the building of a Wall with Mexico including backing off getting Mexico to pay for it. I think he talked it down for the sake of the election, but his supporters are going to hold him to building it. He's already going to be walking back a lot of other things ("LOCK HER UP!!!!"), so he better build the wall. Do you realize that the wall shit is: a. Not really doable. It would be INSANELY expensive (we are talking around 20 billion dollars), get the gvt into endless legal problems and be a nightmare to maintain. b. Completely, utterly useless. Illegal immigrant come in an overwhelming majority to the US with a tourist visa. I get that the wall crap is a very exciting prospect for his supporters and a great symbol of what he represents, but it makes 0 sense on every single level. Like, everything he has promised and all his platform. But since it was a fact free campaign, I guess it will be a fact free presidency, and I already bought the popcorns and wait eagerly to see what happens in that little alternate universe of his.
$20B is less than 3% our last stimulus package. I mean, efficacy aside, this is a meaninglessly small number. You can just not renew 1 contract on another project to make up the money...
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On November 10 2016 04:22 kongoline wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2016 03:39 NukeD wrote:On November 10 2016 03:29 BigFan wrote:On November 10 2016 03:27 Reaps wrote:On November 10 2016 03:24 VayneAuthority wrote:On November 10 2016 02:43 Acrofales wrote:Plansix was just temp banned for 90 days by Sn0_Man.
That account was created on 2011-04-03 05:22:58 and had 14501 posts.
Reason: By Request
For those wondering what happened to P6. This is going to be a very quiet thread once all the election heat dies down, with both kwark and p6 banned. With all of kwizach's talk about a banbet, I'm surprised he's still here. Fiwifaki must be kicking himself for squeeming out of that money bet, though. plansix is the quintessential "I have no idea if i voted correctly, but at least he's gone" Why anyone has to be as unpleasant as he is, is beyond me. Plansix took a banbet? looks like he asked for it himself, maybe to avoid discussing politics and cool down after the defeat? Trully a great day, getting rid of him on top of getting rid of Hillary. User was temp banned for this post. seriously? He gets banned for that when entire topic is filled with with condescending and way more aggressive comments towards trump supporters. Always knew TL is bastion of liberal propaganda but this is ridiculous
If you have questions regarding his ban, best to take it to website feedback.
|
i'd love to get my hands on a physical copy of Newsweek's Special Commemorative Edition "Madam President". "Hillary Clinton's historic Journey to the White House".
any one in here call Trump to win this puppy a week ago? whoever did ... talk a bow... good call.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
