US Elections - There is 'Ahead in the Polls' behind you

[Swordfish]

24 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Lying about the Selena Gomez part, but they are remaking it.

http://www.denofgeek.com/us/movies/wargames/243567/wargames-remake-director-dean-israelite-offers-update

 

 

Interesting.

 

Apparently there was also a sequel:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames:_The_Dead_Code

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

Interesting.

 

Apparently there was also a sequel:

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WarGames:_The_Dead_Code

 Straight to video doesn't count.

[LongRider]

8 hours ago, sologdin said:

and free movement of dark-complected persons.

And a big loss of their voting rights.

[Swordfish]

7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Straight to video doesn't count.

Except for porn.....

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 minute ago, Swordfish said:

Except for porn.....

TRUTH. Although not so much these days.

[lokisnow]

15 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

He could very well be making an excuse in advance of losing the election, but the article I linked went a step further by saying that a few people close to Trump think he actually believes the election is rigged. And I believe that if the latter is true, it's more likely that Trump will not given a traditional concession speech which could prove to be extremely problematic if not flat out dangerous. He's already damaging the legitimacy of our electoral process and god knows what will happen if he denies Clinton a peaceful transition of power. 

Pfft the transition is still going to be easier than post civil war transitions with the series of ultra close elections, and one presidential outcome not determined for five or six months and finally decided  two days before the inauguration, largely because of a fifteen person panel (five reps, five sens, five Supreme Court justices) voted on party lines to elect their party's president. 

our election system has handled far more contentious iterations than trump not conceding.

(clearly I've been listening to the Washington post podcast "presidential" and gathering all sorts of interesting new trivia as a result.)

[The Marquis de Leech]

19 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Pfft the transition is still going to be easier than post civil war transitions with the series of ultra close elections, and one presidential outcome not determined for five or six months and finally decided  two days before the inauguration, largely because of a fifteen person panel (five reps, five sens, five Supreme Court justices) voted on party lines to elect their party's president. 

our election system has handled far more contentious iterations than trump not conceding.

(clearly I've been listening to the Washington post podcast "presidential" and gathering all sorts of interesting new trivia as a result.)

Oh, post-Civil War elections are great for politics geeks. Poor old Horace Greeley in 1872. 1876 makes 2000 look positively tame (though to be fair to Hayes, Tilden's supporters were just as crooked, what with southern voter suppression). Then the mudslinging of 1884 (Blaine is a lying crook! Cleveland fathered an illegitimate child!).

[lokisnow]

Heard an nor story today, hey we're in Pennsylvania talking to trump supporters and the rigged subject came up, these rural supporters said they figured vote fraud was likely because it's only be  "one percent or half a percent" and tiny amounts like that is easy.

this is such a common fallacy, percents make things seem smaller, so 57,500 fraudulent voters willing to commit federal crimes and risk fines and jail in Pennsylvania (one percent of the 2012 vote), is somehow "easy" to pull off and keep quiet. Oy. 

57500 is a larger number than the total population of most rural towns, where this sort of thing is widely believed, but percentage make it seem like it's only a small quantity not a population larger than their entire town!

[The Marquis de Leech]

A couple more polls. Ohio has Clinton +4 (will certainly take it). Utah is Trump +15, but it's 39% Trump, 24% Clinton, 24% Other, and 14% Undecided. Oddly, while Trump's numbers are terrible, Clinton is performing well below Obama 2008 and even slightly below Obama 2012 - I wonder if Utah's residual Democrats are more likely to be Bernie or Bust types who figure there's no harm in going third party in Utah of all places? 

[ummester]

23 hours ago, larrytheimp said:

Funny, I would have thought all fascism starts with:

 

 

Nah, it doesn't.

Callous disregard is not fascism, misanthropy is not fascism. You are thinking about humanism vs anti humanism. You can be anti human without being fascist, so long as your disdain is non specific and not fuelled by victimhood.

Victimhood turns people/groups into fascists - it's always about the victimised wanting to control or fight back those they saw as the oppressors. It's how fundamentalist Muslim leaders convince young men to turn themselves into organic bombs, the young men feel victimised enough to act. It's how Hitler convinced Germans to become Nazis, Germany felt sufficiently victimised by Europe at the time.

[mormont]

Can we take the cod-philosophical blather elsewhere and stick to US election discussion?

[Tywin et al.]

7 hours ago, lokisnow said:

Pfft the transition is still going to be easier than post civil war transitions with the series of ultra close elections, and one presidential outcome not determined for five or six months and finally decided  two days before the inauguration, largely because of a fifteen person panel (five reps, five sens, five Supreme Court justices) voted on party lines to elect their party's president. 

our election system has handled far more contentious iterations than trump not conceding.

(clearly I've been listening to the Washington post podcast "presidential" and gathering all sorts of interesting new trivia as a result.)

That's a rather useless example in 2016.......

[Falcon2908]

Hillary will win.

Mark my words.

[Swordfish]

2 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

That's a rather useless example in 2016.......

Agreed.  Best to just stick to absolute speculation at this point.

[Maithanet]

24 minutes ago, Falcon2908 said:

Hillary will win.

Don't really need to take your word for it, a quick glance at the polls shows Clinton comfortably ahead.  Assuming Clinton wins the slam dunk Democratic states like MI, NM and MN, then she just needs to win the following states:

Wisconsin - Only August poll shows Clinton +13

Virginia - Five August polls show Clinton between +7 and +16

New Hampshire - Four August polls show Clinton +9 to Clinton +15

Colorado - Two August polls show Clinton +8 and +12. 

Pennsylvania - Four August polls show Clinton +9 to Clinton +13.

That's it - that's enough to get her to 273 electoral votes.  Even if we assume that Trump is able to come back and win Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa and Nevada (and he is polling behind in every one of those states), that still wouldn't be enough unless he wins one of the above. 

The election is still two and a half months away, but the state polling continues to show an excellent picture for Clinton's chances. 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

It looks like this for the moment. She should really count her blessings with this election. If the GOP was not such a freakshow with Trump on top of it, and if the bar for prosecuting her over her mail server had not been as high as it is, she would not be anywhere near the White House. And her mails are still quite some millstone around her neck. And with 15.000 new emails popping up now, let's just say the optics do not look great. In any other election cycle that whole thing would have sunk her. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I don't why people seem so confident. Most election forecaster put Trump's chances of winning at 15-20%. That's actually slightly worse than the odds losing a round of Russian Roulette.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Notone said:

It looks like this for the moment. She should really count her blessings with this election. If the GOP was not such a freakshow with Trump on top of it, and if the bar for prosecuting her over her mail server had not been as high as it is, she would not be anywhere near the White House. And her mails are still quite some millstone around her neck. And with 15.000 new emails popping up now, let's just say the optics do not look great. In any other election cycle that whole thing would have sunk her. 

So if we had a completely different GOP and the law were such that things that aren't illegal suddenly were for no discernable reason, she'd have troubles? I mean, I guess. If reality were hugely different and people had fish for heads the results would likely be different I supposed

If we stick to some non-fish-head-based silly alternate reality, there's no way the email thing leads to prosecution because how does that ever even happen and Clinton has a tougher time against a JEB! or something, but still likely wins because the GOP still has no good or easy road to the White House and Clinton has a really good campaign operation going. (in large part because it's mostly Obama's campaign mark 3)

Trump being a dumpster fire of a candidate makes her job way easier in some ways, but also way more important because her losing becomes suddenly ALOT worse. And Trump or something like him is, in many ways, an inevitable outcome of the GOP's trajectory anyway.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

31 minutes ago, Shryke said:

So if we had a completely different GOP and the law were such that things that aren't illegal suddenly were for no discernable reason, she'd have troubles? I mean, I guess. If reality were hugely different and people had fish for heads the results would likely be different I supposed

If we stick to some non-fish-head-based silly alternate reality, there's no way the email thing leads to prosecution because how does that ever even happen and Clinton has a tougher time against a JEB! or something, but still likely wins because the GOP still has no good or easy road to the White House and Clinton has a really good campaign operation going. (in large part because it's mostly Obama's campaign mark 3)

Trump being a dumpster fire of a candidate makes her job way easier in some ways, but also way more important because her losing becomes suddenly ALOT worse. And Trump or something like him is, in many ways, an inevitable outcome of the GOP's trajectory anyway.

This is a little harsh. I don't think it's too hard to imagine a field without Donald Trump where immigration and race weren't THE central issue of the Republican primary. In that alternate universe, the Republicans would have been delivering bog standard Republican speeches on the economy and Obama's "disastrous" foreign policy, and Rubio would have been leveraging his "Gang of 8" credentials on comprehensive immigration reform as a positive for him, as opposed to essentially disavowing the only kind-of accomplishment he had in the Senate. In that universe, Rubio is a younger, more compelling Romney (ie: a fairly unexciting, moderate, business-focused Republican), and he rides into the general with the mild support of his base plus a larger than expected share of the Hispanic population allowing him to be at least competitive with Clinton. 

[Tywin et al.]

I doubt Rubio would have won the nomination in a Trumpless primary. It's much more likely that it would have come down to JEB! vs Cruz.