US Elections - From Russia with Love

[Fragile Bird]

5 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

You have a source?  I didn't see anything for Incirlik on a quick google.

I have questions about that because I don't see a major news organization linking the story.  It seems like a mob has seized the base, and I would think the US military would be very hesitant to shoot locals.  The base was shut down when the coup was going on and right after by the Turkish government, this seems like something organized on the sly by the Turkish government.  Maybe give us Gullen and we will give back the air base?
The news source is a weird one, but they say Rt is televising the 'rally'.  I assume that means Russian television?  Not Reuters, since no Reuters story popped up. 

http://yournewswire.com/turkey-seize-control-of-us-airbase/

[A Horse Named Stranger]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

 

Relatedly, Warren Buffet is endorsing and campaigning with Clinton in Omaha today. That makes three of the more famous billionaires endorsing Clinton in under a week. I wonder if Clinton has some more of them lined up to steadily roll out over the course of the campaign. I hope so, few things seem to get under Trump's skin more than billionaires, especially those richer than even his fake net worth, criticizing him. For instance, until he got caught up in this Khan thing, Trump's biggest DNC rants were about Bloomberg. It'd be great to see any of Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Steve Ballmer, Mark Zuckerburg, etc. start endorsing Clinton. They probably won't, but then again, I never would've expected Cuban to endorse either.

What's so surprising about Buffet endorsing Clinton? Buffet is a known Democratic donor for a good while.

E.g. This was Buffet in '06

And I think it was Buffet who made this famous quote, it's a class warfare, it's my class [the rich] that is waging the war and we are winning it, while we shouldn't. (quote inaccuracies due to a.) my memory probably being 100% accurate and b.) translation from and back to English.)  

This is pretty much in line with Bernie Sanders 1% message. So Buffet backing either Trump or Johnson would be the real news to me.

In your list of bilionaires backing Clinton you probably forgot George Soros. Who I think also has a more Democrat friendly leaning in general.

 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

3 hours ago, Fez said:

Mark Cuban endorsed Clinton over the weekend at a rally in Pittsburgh, where he's originally from. Mainly using the argument that Trump is crazy and will destroy the American Dream for entrepreneurs, whereas Clinton will preserve the ability for entrepreneurs to at least have a fighting chance.

If Cuban actively campaigns for Clinton in Texas, is he popular enough to make a difference? Not for Clinton to win the state of course, I'd never expect that, but to close the margin enough that Democrats win some downballot races they otherwise wouldn't?

 

I don't know, I don't live in the Dallas area, but I doubt it. First, Texas is already gerrymandered to hell. Most people in Austin have an old, white Republican man as a Representative. Second, I'm not sure celebrity (which is pretty much what Cuban is) endorsements count for much. I mean, Tom Brady and Bill Belichik could both wholeheartedly endorse Trump, and Massachusetts would still go solidly Democrat.

[Fez]

12 minutes ago, Notone said:

What's so surprising about Buffet endorsing Clinton? Buffet is a known Democratic donor for a good while.

E.g. This was Buffet in '06

And I think it was Buffet who made this famous quote, it's a class warfare, it's my class [the rich] that is waging the war and we are winning it, while we shouldn't. (quote inaccuracies due to a.) my memory probably being 100% accurate and b.) translation from and back to English.)  

This is pretty much in line with Bernie Sanders 1% message. So Buffet backing either Trump or Johnson would be the real news to me.

In your list of bilionaires backing Clinton you probably forgot George Soros. Who I think also has a more Democrat friendly leaning in general.

 

Not saying its surprising, just noting that it happened. The Cuban endorsement is more surprising. And I didn't forget about Soros, I just didn't mention him because it was completely expected and happened a while ago.

[James Arryn]

Kinda OT, but I hate when racists talk to me like I' one of them just because I'm white. Fuck it creeps me out. Guy at London hostel just told me he moved from Netherlands a few years back for 'obvious reasons', by which he apparently meant 'Moroccans'. I was debating saying I was half Morrocan, but really just too tired ATM. But fuck people, man. 

[lokisnow]

On Pennsylvania demographics:

 

Quote

Between metro Philadelphia and Allegheny County, Republicans start with around a 400,000 vote deficit -- more votes than they are likely to scrounge up in the rest of the state. Using 2012 demographics and turnout, and holding the metro Philadelphia and Allegheny County totals the same, Trump would have to get over 61 percent of the vote in the rest of the state, about 5 points higher than Romney got in 2012 or Bush got in 2004.

Just looking at geography, maybe that 5 percentage points seems within the realm of possibility. But a look at the demographics changes that. As of the 2015 Census estimate, Pennsylvania's population is 77.4 percent white non-Hispanic, down from 78.6 percent in 2012. Roughly 29 percent of the adult white population in the state has at least a bachelor's degree. And let's assume an electorate that will be 47 percent male. Putting those three together gets us to an approximate share of the voters who will be white males without a college degree: about 25 percent.

Why does this matter? Because the Democratic advantage in Pennsylvania in 2012 was 5.4 percentage points. And because the only demographic group with which Trump is doing significantly better than Romney did is white men with no degree. So for Trump to win Pennsylvania, given current demographic trends, he probably needs to get more votes outside of metro Philadelphia and Allegheny County than Romney did, more than he can hope to get just from white men with no degree. To squeeze that margin out of 25 percent of the electorate, he needs working-class white men in Pennsylvania to move not just a 14 points towards Republicans, as indicated in current national polling, but closer to 25 points.

This doesn't even take into account other demographic headwinds working against Republicans. Since 2012, the five core counties of Philadelphia have added 40,000 people, while the rest of the state has lost 10,000. The white, non-Hispanic population has shrunk by 135,000 while the Hispanic or non-white population has grown by 165,000.

If he is to rely on his white, working-class male coalition, as appears to be the case, the only way Trump can carry Pennsylvania is if there's a surge in white voter turnout, a vindication of the "missing white voters" theory. However, as David Wasserman shows, the decline in white voter turnout since 1992 has mostly been in noncompetitive states. There's been virtually no drop in turnout in Pennsylvania. So they’re hardly missing

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-08-01/demographics-turned-pennsylvania-blue-and-democrats-keep-gaining

[Altherion]

4 hours ago, Ormond said:

To Altherion: The Khan episode proves that Trump either really has Narcissistic Personality Disorder, or he has read the diagnosis and that's what he's deliberately "enacting". The only reason he would be doing the latter is if he really is deliberately trying to lose the election and destroy the Republican party. The former interpretation is actually much more likely. I don't believe this is an act. Trump really is a seriously damaged individual.

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/narcissistic-personality-disorder/basics/symptoms/con-20025568

Alternatively, he was trying to score some cheap points off of a low-ranking Democratic speaker and did not expect the media to put said speaker's replies on the front pages of Time and CNN. The elements which make his campaign more interesting than a typical one also make it provocative and controversial which means that every once in a while he misplays things like this. Of course, your version of it could also be true, but I don't think it is the only one.

3 hours ago, mormont said:

Well, that depends how you look at it. After all, Trump's entire campaign is basically a self-endorsement by a billionaire: his answer to any question about qualifications is to point to his wealth and business record. So, for people with even more wealth and even more success to criticise him surely undercuts that narrative, at the very least. And it also appears to annoy him, which is a bonus.

3 hours ago, Fez said:

Don't think 'amusing' is really the right adjective here, maybe 'interesting.' Last time I checked, most billionaires, at least those who aren't explicitly tied to Goldman Sachs, are fairly popular, when they are known at all; so I doubt this has any negative impact. It may not have any direct positive impact either, but I think the bigger value here is maker Trump ever more hinged (which in turn may turn some additional voters against him), rather than what the billionaires actually saying changing any votes.

It does appear to annoy him which is part of the reason I find it amusing. However, I am not confident about the extent to which popular billionaires endorsing a campaign are helpful. Trump's campaign certainly relies on the fact that he's a billionaire, but there's a crucial distinction: his claim is that he's a billionaire who is fed up with the corrupt system (despite the fact that it benefits him!) and thus has decided to run for President so as to make things better for America as a whole. The billionaires endorsing Clinton are part of the rigged system.

Quote

Although, it sounds like VA (and CO) are already pretty much locked down. In fact, from the more realistic GOP strategists, it seems like they've acknowledged that this is pretty much their one and only path to victory. Their are technically other paths of course, but none of them are looking promising at all.

Interesting. This is not the impression that I get from FiveThirtyEight. In any case, I think it's a bit early for making definitive predictions. After all, the arbitrarily detained man has said that he's not done releasing emails...

[Swordfish]

On 7/30/2016 at 9:11 AM, Inigima said:

I am very interested to learn what lessons, if any, the Democrats will learn as a party from this election. Sometimes it seems like they get it, other times they seem stunningly out of touch. If the Republicans' disarray makes the Democrats complacent it is going to cost them. I'm pretty concerned that even if we don't have a Trump presidency this time, we will have one or something like it very soon, unless the Dems understand the very real frustrations people have, particularly with neoliberal trade policies.

Yep.  I think if the DNC doesn't realize how tone deaf they've become, they are headed for the same kind of disaster we're seeing on the right at the moment.  

[mormont]

12 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Alternatively, he was trying to score some cheap points off of a low-ranking Democratic speaker and did not expect the media to put said speaker's replies on the front pages of Time and CNN.

This is not remotely credible. To believe this, Trump would have to have suddenly become a blithering idiot with no idea of how the US media works - the very thing you've been arguing he is not.

[Fez]

21 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Interesting. This is not the impression that I get from FiveThirtyEight. In any case, I think it's a bit early for making definitive predictions. After all, the arbitrarily detained man has said that he's not done releasing emails...

That's 'cause you're looking at the wrong model.

And its really not that early to start making predictions. What the race looks like in about two weeks, so after the convention bounces die down, is pretty much what the race will stay at until the end. There could be a big event shaking things up, like more Clinton email revelations or some top Republicans finally saying they will vote against Trump, but Presidential elections are generally pretty stable affairs these days once people know what the context and content of the election cycle will be.

And if Assange had anything better to leak, he would've already done it to try to disrupt and overshadow the Democratic convention. He's got nothing, unless something else gets hacked and given to him.

[Mudguard]

22 minutes ago, Fez said:

And if Assange had anything better to leak, he would've already done it to try to disrupt and overshadow the Democratic convention. He's got nothing, unless something else gets hacked and given to him.

Around October would be the best time to release the really damaging stuff, if they actually have it, if the goal is to sink Clinton and elect Trump.  It would be too late for the Democrats to put up an alternative candidate.  Also, if the Russians are the ones feeding Wikileaks the emails, they may not have given them everything at once.  There's reason to believe that they would prefer Trump as president, so it's possible that Russia, if they had the emails from Clinton's server, would pass the info to Wikileaks closer to October.  We'll have to wait and see.

[Altherion]

26 minutes ago, Fez said:

That's 'cause you're looking at the wrong model.

But even if you look at that one, Clinton is up in VA and CO by less than 4% and a Trump victory in either one would be well within the margin of uncertainty.

Quote

And if Assange had anything better to leak, he would've already done it to try to disrupt and overshadow the Democratic convention. He's got nothing, unless something else gets hacked and given to him.

Why? The convention was once a pivotal event, but nowadays it is effectively a party -- it provides a temporary bump in the polls, but if there is a clear winner in the primary, it is extremely difficult to force a serious change of course there. To truly make a difference, I would expect one or more minor releases at opportune times in August and September (maybe something from the hacks reported a few days ago) and, of course, the crown jewels of the email collection should be saved for the traditional October surprise.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

17 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Why? The convention was once a pivotal event, but nowadays it is effectively a party -- it provides a temporary bump in the polls, but if there is a clear winner in the primary, it is extremely difficult to force a serious change of course there. To truly make a difference, I would expect one or more minor releases at opportune times in August and September (maybe something from the hacks reported a few days ago) and, of course, the crown jewels of the email collection should be saved for the traditional October surprise.

 But I think what was mentioned earlier is probably correct. I wouldn't expect Wikileaks to play politics and hold information for release when it has more impact. They should just release these things as they receive them.  

[mormont]

1 hour ago, Mudguard said:

Around October would be the best time to release the really damaging stuff, if they actually have it, if the goal is to sink Clinton and elect Trump.  It would be too late for the Democrats to put up an alternative candidate.  Also, if the Russians are the ones feeding Wikileaks the emails, they may not have given them everything at once.  There's reason to believe that they would prefer Trump as president, so it's possible that Russia, if they had the emails from Clinton's server, would pass the info to Wikileaks closer to October.  We'll have to wait and see.

But by this logic, surely the best tactic would have been to release everything in October? What's the point of releasing some of the less damaging stuff at the convention followed by the real meat later?

[Altherion]

7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

But I think what was mentioned earlier is probably correct. I wouldn't expect Wikileaks to play politics and hold information for release when it has more impact. They should just release these things as they receive them.  

Why would you not expect that? Timing the release for maximum impact is precisely their mode of operation:

Quote

 

Assange said release of the information was timed to coincide with the start of the Democratic National Convention.

"That's when we knew there would be maximum interest by readers, but also, we have a responsibility to," Assange said.

 

 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

But by this logic, surely the best tactic would have been to release everything in October? What's the point of releasing some of the less damaging stuff at the convention followed by the real meat later?

Maybe they thought it was best to release something that damages the unity of the Democratic party right before the Convention, but some hypothetical more broadly damaging email might be best left for right before the General Election.

[lokisnow]

Now that everyone knows the russians are feeding wiki leaks to try and control our election,  there's a strong possibility that releases will backfire or be immediately impugned as Russian fabrications for the purpose of controlling our elections.  Any additional releases will have the Clinton campaign immediately claim they are fake and created by the russians, Ultimately,  most of the electorate then will not lend the alleged fabrications credence. Classic he said she said.

 

But the upside is that republicans won't lose the faction of their voters who are Russian loyalists and sympathizers.

[Fez]

38 minutes ago, Altherion said:

But even if you look at that one, Clinton is up in VA and CO by less than 4% and a Trump victory in either one would be well within the margin of uncertainty.

Why? The convention was once a pivotal event, but nowadays it is effectively a party -- it provides a temporary bump in the polls, but if there is a clear winner in the primary, it is extremely difficult to force a serious change of course there. To truly make a difference, I would expect one or more minor releases at opportune times in August and September (maybe something from the hacks reported a few days ago) and, of course, the crown jewels of the email collection should be saved for the traditional October surprise.

Oh I know. I'm not basing anything on the model, just pointing it out. I haven't particularly liked Nate ever since, ironically, he underplayed Trump's chances in the GOP primary all last year. I prefer basing my predictions off stuff like the polling leaks reporters get, the actions of the campaigns themselves, and the (very small) amount of inside info that I have. 

And the convention is still a pivotal event. Its a four day ad by each party covered breathlessly by all the national media. Its the biggest chance the party has to make its case for why it should win the election and for firing up its supporters. If Assange had something big enough to squash the Democratic convention coverage in the media, and piss off enough Sanders supporters that there was no way to cover up the booing at the convention, it would've been devastating for the party. The state of the race from last weekend, with Trump probably in the lead, would be baked in, and Clinton would be an underdog for the rest of the campaign. If Assange had something big, he'd have leaked it.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

11 minutes ago, Altherion said:

Why would you not expect that? Timing the release for maximum impact is precisely their mode of operation:

 Hmmph. Guess you have a point there. I thought it was in their mission statement to be politically neutral whenever possible. To just leak any information it received, when they received it, as long as it was deemed significant.    

[mormont]

32 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

Maybe they thought it was best to release something that damages the unity of the Democratic party right before the Convention, but some hypothetical more broadly damaging email might be best left for right before the General Election.

But why would they think that, is my question?