| 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. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15736 Posts
On November 08 2017 08:16 IyMoon wrote: Is anyone else just refreshing pages on VA gov race to kill time? Any predictions for tonight? You know I am. Losing my shit over here. | ||
|
Wulfey_LA
932 Posts
On November 08 2017 08:21 sc-darkness wrote: Come on. Race and gender didn't win election for Trump. He's an awful person but let's not go with generic labels. I'm sure there is a better reason than that. Would you call yourself a data person? I like to mark my beliefs to data when I can. The struggle is finding reliable data in a world where a lot of the data is paid propaganda. Here is some data on who Obama -> Trump voters are. The data is in. RACIAL RESENTMENT is the big predictor, period. People can spin up narratives on this forum with zero citation of evidence or data, but all those narratives combined isn't worth even one study. The only qualifier on racial resentment being the key indicator is that Obama lost most of the racially resenting whites by 2012. The other big predictor is college education, but that is just another way of saying "I left town and met people of other races". RACIAL RESENTMENT Using this and other data, political scientists have argued that racial resentment is the strongest predictor of whether voters flipped from Mr. Obama to Mr. Trump, and the biggest driver of Trump support among these voters. Yes, racial resentment is the strongest predictor of the Obama-Trump vote in this survey data. White, working-class Obama voters with racially conservative views were very likely to flip to the Republicans. For example, Mrs. Clinton won just 47 percent of white Obama voters without a college degree who disagreed with the idea that “white people in the U.S. have certain advantages because of the color of their skin.” In contrast, she retained 88 percent of white Obama voters without a college degree who agreed that white people have certain advantages. Nonetheless, voters with high racial resentment did not necessarily represent the preponderance of the Obama-Trump vote, because Mr. Obama had already lost nearly all such voters by 2012. To take the prior example: 49 percent of white, no-college Obama-Trump supporters at least somewhat disagreed with the notion that white people had certain advantages. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/15/upshot/the-obama-trump-voters-are-real-heres-what-they-think.html The study: http://people.umass.edu/schaffne/schaffner_et_al_trump.pdf The charts (yes it really is race if you go by the data): + Show Spoiler + ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/RZ1oPQh.png) EDIT: that bottom right chart really puts the "I just don't see race" people in stark relief. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 08 2017 08:28 On_Slaught wrote: I'm legit concerned this is a national security issue. Trump feeling like he has to fill every tweet could lead to some even more disruptive tweets which spew more crap than we are used to. If your national security problem with Trump is his tweeting, I don't think 280 vs 140 is an appreciable difference. I can't agree with the impact with you there, but I could agree if you're talking foreign policy stability and legislative agenda ... in which case the problem wouldn't even be noticeably different. | ||
|
Mohdoo
United States15736 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On November 08 2017 08:21 sc-darkness wrote: Come on. Race and gender didn't win election for Trump. He's an awful person but let's not go with generic labels. I'm sure there is a better reason than that. You do recall the forum you're posting in, right? Seriously now. The conventional wisdom of the majority says race and sex is super significant and never to be marginalized. I don't think they're even open to changing their minds on that point. | ||
KwarK
United States43553 Posts
On November 08 2017 08:55 Danglars wrote: You do recall the forum you're posting in, right? Seriously now. The conventional wisdom of the majority says race and sex is super significant and never to be marginalized. I don't think they're even open to changing their minds on that point. I didn't say it was super significant. I said the margin was less than half of one percent and that even if it was near insignificant it still would have changed the election, simply because the victory was so narrow. If you could read the arguments before you try to disagree with them you'd appear less of a fool. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5042 Posts
Let's take a current example many people use and is ultimately flawed in ways they can't explain themselves: the flooding of Middle Easterners into Westerns Europe replacing its current demography with their own in a few generations. Why is this a bad thing per se? Why is it an absolute necessity to cling to your current cultural achievements? Is it somehow a game of who can prosper the longest and there's a prize in the end for those that can stay afloat? Is it perhaps the disappearance of a necessary influence that will destabilize the rest of the world? Is it because it's a threat? I don't know why people have this emotional side when it comes to the replacement of a demography simply because they'll seemingly wash away hard boiled cultural aspects of that demography. It's simply fear of the unknown; unfamiliar territory will always frighten us. To end with this side note of a flawed -and very briefly touched upon- concern of (hyper)conservatives, I just want to say this: the only reason I am scared of a replacement is that values that are dictated by the Koran and executed by its minions will become a staple, but already we can see that the second and third generational waves have watered down and hybridized their cultural heritage, we might just end in a society that's at an equilibrium in Europe yet. Why would a nationalist ever defend a citizen of its own nation that has a radically opposing view of the world than himself? Values, like almost anything about humans, are malleable, they can and do change over time. To jump in on xDaunts edited part, I think gay parade and Black History month, alongside every other celebration of identity need to be abolished if we truly want to achieve a (global) society without conflict (in the general sense; there will always be crime and such). Or they should naturally disappear the more evened out a society becomes. Personally I've rejected the idea of being Belgian (whatever that even means) a long time ago and I wish to be simply a citizen of the world where I can go and do my thing without any hassle. Radicalism is the only true fear I have left for this world because it comes in the form of cultist behavior, which has the power to topple anything. This, for me, comes down to the capitalistic unsaturable hoarding mentality of the West, which has been adopted by many (the pandering politicians are an issue as well) and the radical Islamic warhorse (depending on what you call radical; I consider only marrying people from your own faith and blindly believing the God of your religion to be radical already). One more thing about nationalism and why I think it's severely flawed: the internet. It has paved the way for me to connect with people thousands of kilometers away from me that share the same values as me. I can be more in line with a person I'm connected to online that my neighbor. This alone is enough for me to consider nationalism nothing more than a farce. And let's not open up the jar of 'economic principles' nationalism wields, please, it has the same shortcomings. With a little deconstruction it'll fall down like a house of cards. It's simply irrational to be nationalistic in an ever globalizing world. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22084 Posts
On November 08 2017 08:21 sc-darkness wrote: Come on. Race and gender didn't win election for Trump. He's an awful person but let's not go with generic labels. I'm sure there is a better reason than that. Yesterday (I think it was yesterday, cba to go back to check) there was a discussion about an article about how the right got to Trump. How Liberals have been in ascendance for 70 years and the situation has gotten so dire that they need to 'rush the cockpit' and are willing to risk crashing to the country to stop it. That 'Liberal ascension' that they need to stop? Thats womans rights, black rights, gay rights ect. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
Just use the 538 tracker. That way you don't need to refresh and also don't have to read precint return tea leaves. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12387 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12387 Posts
On November 08 2017 09:37 farvacola wrote: Only 2 of the Fairfax precincts are in as of this post, bet ya the race gets called when the rest come in. NY Times started their estimate at something like +1 Northam and are now consistently over +4 | ||
|
farvacola
United States18846 Posts
| ||
|
micronesia
United States24753 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland12387 Posts
Also getting rekt in the House of delegates for what it's worth, every incumbent that is losing so far is republican. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
doomdonker
90 Posts
On November 08 2017 09:47 ticklishmusic wrote: some folks are calling it for northam already. Its still early but its seriously looking like Gillespie is getting rolled hard in most districts that he should be doing alright in. Its looking like he isn't getting remotely close to the response he needs to win in VA. Northam is about as exciting as a piece of toast but I suppose that looks pretty appealing when put next to the looming ghost of Trump. Its become exceedingly clear to even the apolitical that he doesn't give a shit about the working or middle class. It seems that the whole Obamacare sabotage Trump is attempting to do is really putting to screws on Gillespie so far, seeing that is the dominant reason people so far broke for Northam. | ||
|
TheTenthDoc
United States9561 Posts
(Also, apparently the exit polling suggested late deciders broke away from Gillespie which is obviously not a good sign when you seem to be trailing in the polls, even narrowly) | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On November 08 2017 09:42 micronesia wrote: Since people waiting on line at 7pm are allowed to vote even though the precinct is closing, I imagine the places with longer lines are generally going to report later. The question is, are left-leaning districts more likely to have lines? If so, I would expect the needle to make a late in the game shift to the left. The needle in Virgina typically moves left sd the night goes on. It did in 2016, 2014 and 2012. I'm not versed enough to breakdown why but I remember it happening every time. | ||
| ||
|
|
RongYI Cup
herO vs Maru
SC Evo League
Replay Cast
uThermal 2v2 Circuit
WardiTV Winter Champion…
OSC
Replay Cast
Wardi Open
Monday Night Weeklies
Sparkling Tuna Cup
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
