U.S. Elections - Philadelphia edition

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

1 minute ago, Shryke said:

Yeah, polling right now seems mostly still the effect of Comey's press conference hitjob and the convention bounce. Some people thought maybe the epic shambles of the convention would mean no bounce, but that does not appear to be the case.

The other thing to remember with polling is that alot of polls I'm seeing these days seem to be predicting a much whiter electorate then 2012, which obviously favours Trump and I think is a rather bad assumption.

Oh give me a fucking break. Really? A hitjob? Is that the current talking point? Recommending against criminal prosecution but that noting that confidential materials were handled irresponsibly is a hitjob now? Please. 

[aceluby]

10 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Sometimes, in my darkest moments, I wonder if it wouldn't be worth a Trump win just to watch some of my most favorite smug, sanctimonious liberals completely wet the bed and gnash their teeth in despair.

I try to quickly dispel these thoughts, but I admit, on some days they seem unusually appealing. 

Didn't get enough of that in 2000 or 2004?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

19 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

But also keep in mind that in general, third party candidates do worse in swing states than they do nationally, because there is more pressure on voters to pick a winning candidate because their vote matters more.  Whereas anybody who wants to vote for Stein or Johnson in California, New York or Texas can go right ahead without having any such concerns.  In 2000, Nader got 2.9% nationally, and topped 5% in 10 contests, but only one of those ten was a particularly close contest (Oregon, where he got 5.1% and Gore won by just 7,000 votes).

True, third parties do worse in swing states than in red or blue states. But I'm getting the impression that third parties will have their best collective year since 1996, given how unpopular the major party candidates are. And I'm guessing that will lead to higher vote shares in the swing states too. Don't forget that back in 2000, it only took Nader getting 1.5% of the vote to swing FL to Bush.

[DunderMifflin]

5 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Didn't get enough of that in 2000 or 2004?

They seemed way less authoritarian back then. 

 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

11 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Oh give me a fucking break. Really? A hitjob? Is that the current talking point? Recommending against criminal prosecution but that noting that confidential materials were handled irresponsibly is a hitjob now? Please. 

I can't speak for Shyrke, but i think the complaint for many largely comes from Comey being so strident during the press conference, which got a lot of press, followed by him walking back a lot of his criticisms when he testified in front of Congress, which got little news coverage. 

ETA:

Sorry to hear about your kid, @Kalbear!

[sologdin]

10 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

True, third parties do worse in swing states than in red or blue states. But I'm getting the impression that third parties will have their best collective year since 1996, given how unpopular the major party candidates are. And I'm guessing that will lead to higher vote shares in the swing states too. Don't forget that back in 2000, it only took Nader getting 1.5% of the vote to swing FL to Bush.

no need to beat up on the greens.  gore lost more registered dems to bush than he did to nader.  and that's not counting the 90,000 scrubbed voters.  

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

13 minutes ago, aceluby said:

Didn't get enough of that in 2000 or 2004?

Actually, I thought the whole thing was rather silly in 2004. I was in college and one of my professors, in a move validating every conservative fear about the liberalism of American universities, suggested that we put aside our lesson for the day and have a group mourning session to talk about how upset we were by the death of American liberalism.

I voted to have our lesson. 

[Maester Drew]

@Kalbear Sorry to hear about your son, I hope you and your family will pull through.

22 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

Libertarianism is worse than facism, neonazism, and xenophobia all mixed and multiplied.

Why? From what I understand, libertarianism is about giving as much freedom to individuals, while fascism, neonazism, and xenophobia are about oppressing individuals.

[James Arryn]

I know it's like tap-dancing through a minefield, but it's a bit depressing how often the Clinton campaign is fumbling. If they manage to lose to Donald fucking Trump, I will hate them with the burning red heat of several suns. The good news is I think a less appalling GOP candidate walks away with this, but the downside of actually losing to Trump...this is the kind of joke that millions more weep than e'er did laugh at it.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

5 minutes ago, sologdin said:

no need to beat up on the greens.  gore lost more registered dems to bush than he did to nader.  and that's not counting the 90,000 scrubbed voters.  

This is easily the most straightforward thing I've ever seen you type. 

And I wasn't beating up on Greens, just showing that a couple of percentage points can swing a tight election. 

[Mlle. Zabzie]

59 minutes ago, Fez said:

See I don't think he's a threat to usually Democratic centrist voters at all. He likely will take some usually Republican centrists who can't stand Trump but can't bring themselves to vote for Clinton, even though don't really agree with any of Johnson's positions. I think the threat to Clinton is pulling votes from left, almost entirely on the basis of his stance on marijuana legalization and of not being Clinton or Trump.

I also expect NoVa to vote overwhelming for Clinton, even moreso than we did for Obama. The Democrats here aren't college students or activists, its all people who's jobs rely on the Federal government, one or another, and generally support the status quo and are highly educated. If Johnson has a good result in NoVa, it'll be because the actual, literal members of the Republican establishment decided to go for him instead of Trump, and Trump ends up with 20%-25% in the NoVa counties instead of the 35% Romney got

 

I'd peg Virginia as possibly the safest of the battleground states, or maybe second, behind Colorado. 

I actually agree with 95% of that.  NoVa absolutely goes for Clinton - think Johnson pulls away from natural Republican voters there. 

[James Arryn]

4 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

@Kalbear Sorry to hear about your son, I hope you and your family will pull through.

Why? From what I understand, libertarianism is about giving as much freedom to individuals, while fascism, neonazism, and xenophobia are about oppressing individuals.

 Should the government be allowed to tell a business that they can't chose not to serve black people? 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

3 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

 Should the government be allowed to tell a business that they can't chose not to serve black people? 

It kind of doesn't even matter. Surely, the position that individual businesses should be free to discriminate against black people is better than the position that individual businesses should be required to discriminate against black people, which is of course the neo-Nazi / xenophobic view of it. Surely, TerraPrime is just doing the political equivalent of some practice tackles to try to psyche himself up for an uninspiring Democratic National Convention.  

[S John]

I've said this from the beginning - as bungled as the Republican process has been, the Dem's were incredibly stupid to attempt to coronate Hillary. It seems that among the powers that be there was a sense that it was Mrs. Clinton's 'turn' to be the nominee and that is probably going to bite the Dem's in the ass big time. It felt like a coronation since before the election season and now we have evidence that a coronation is exactly what it was intended to be.  A shining example of crony, entitlement politics in a year when that shit isn't going to fly with the electorate.

Now it's just a question of whether or not enough people will come out to vote for Hillary solely as a better option to Trump, which does not bode well. Among the general population, meaning outside of this board and other liberal internet circles, I think there are very few people who truly believe that she is the best the country could do. Of course Trump is also a tough pill to swallow. I really don't know if we have ever had worse choices going into an election.

Ultimately I'll likely end up biting the bullet and voting for Hillary but... God damn.  What a shitty election cycle.  

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

13 minutes ago, Maester Drew said:

@Kalbear Sorry to hear about your son, I hope you and your family will pull through.

Why? From what I understand, libertarianism is about giving as much freedom to individuals, while fascism, neonazism, and xenophobia are about oppressing individuals.

People hate heretics more than nonbelievers. People who share some beliefs with you, but still seem to get it fundamentally wrong tend to piss you off more than people whom you share no beliefs with.

[James Arryn]

7 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

It kind of doesn't even matter. Surely, the position that individual businesses should be free to discriminate against black people is better than the position that individual businesses should be required to discriminate against black people, which is of course the neo-Nazi / xenophobic view of it. Surely, TerraPrime is just doing the political equivalent of some practice tackles to try to psyche himself up for an uninspiring Democratic National Convention.  

No, not true. That's a serious misconception. The Nazis couched most things as freedoms, for instance. All the 'decadent art'? They put on the biggest art show in German history to allow people to go and choose for themselves. Almost all racist legislation was passed as people expressing choice, ie freedom. Of course it was massaged by fearmongering, propaganda and behind the scenes intimidation, but of what country isn't that true to some degree? The point is, the fascist and Nazis came to power on vast waves of people celebrating new-found 'freedom'.

That was my point; freedom is just a word, like love. It means different things to different people...even if some act like they have a monopoly on the 'real' thing. 

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

2 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

No, not true. That's a serious misconception. The Nazis couched most things as freedoms, for instance. All the 'decadent art'? They put on the biggest art show in German history to allow people to go and choose for themselves. Almost all racist legislation was passed as people expressing choice, ie freedom. Of course it was massaged by fearmongering, propaganda and behind the scenes intimidation, but of what country isn't that true to some degree? The point is, the fascist and Nazis came to power on vast waves of people celebrating new-found 'freedom'.

That was my point; freedom is just a word, like love. It means different things to different people...even if some act like they have a monopoly on the 'real' thing. 

I literally have no idea what you're responding to, because you haven't any identified a misconception. The Nazis purged dissident artists, expelled them from university positions, destroyed their work (bonfires of Picassos and Dalis in Paris) and would even occasionally raid them to make sure they weren't producing new art. They didn't give these dissident artists the option of producing their work if they wanted. 

I appreciate that the Nazis may have propagandized this as "liberating" the people of Germany from degenerate art, but of course, that doesn't make it so. 

 

[alguien]

2 hours ago, Maester Drew said:

He's still a far better choice than recklessness and buffoonery.

Do you really think he'll be a better choice on all the issues you listed than Clinton?

I find that... baffling. 

[Shryke]

49 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Oh give me a fucking break. Really? A hitjob? Is that the current talking point? Recommending against criminal prosecution but that noting that confidential materials were handled irresponsibly is a hitjob now? Please. 

Yes. The FBI director for some reason felt the need to come out, in a large national public press conference, and say "Clinton did nothing illegal, there will be no charges. But let me, well you are all here, tell you just how bad all the shit she did was anyway. Cause it was so bad."

The FBI director should not be sticking his fingers into a fucking election trying to influence the outcome in a way that has absolutely nothing to do with his job. His duties ended with whether charges would be laid or not. The rest is abusing his position to editorialise. 

[Maester Drew]

29 minutes ago, James Arryn said:

 Should the government be allowed to tell a business that they can't chose not to serve black people? 

No. I mean, isn't it a given that it would be suicide if a company decided to no longer serve black people. Honestly today with how progressive our society has become, no business needs the government to tell them who they can and cannot serve, because they have the consumers to help them with that decision (i.e. face inevitable backlash if they dare refuse service to a black person).

1 minute ago, alguien said:

Do you really think he'll be a better choice on all the issues you listed than Clinton?

I find that... baffling. 

I'm talking about overall as a leader, not policy point by policy point.

He has the executive experience a la his governorship of NM. He isn't embroiled in any scandals (real or imagined). Nor is he a complete idiot like Trump (who also is dealing with his own scandals).