U.S. Presidential Election 2016

[Stephan90]

Since when are video games a priority when it comes to deciding between two paties to vote for?

[Svip]

Since when are video games a priority when it comes to deciding between two paties to vote for?

 

You clearly don't understand American politics.

[El Dildo]

video games and American politics enjoy a healthy, long-term relationship.

 

[Spaghetti Cat]

Aparrently someone paid for a propaganda film about Berghazi to be made, what utterly coincidental timing.

 

 

Ok,

 

So if we're going to call this propaganda then let's at least be fair across the board. That means your Michael Moore, or George Clooney, or whatever VERY IMPORTANT FILM being hoisted onto the American public is also. It's not a one-way street.

 

I always view it as art before politics. I don't agree with Michael Moore, but I respect what he does. Same with Clooney, and yes even (big sigh) Bay. That's the way they should always be viewed. But our Political Correctness has become our Political Culture, and it's hard to separate the two sometimes. Just look at how a revered figure like Eastwood was vilified with American Sniper last year.

 

Now, having seen some clips from the movie, there is very little politics involved. It's the story of the men over there defending the consulate, and later, the annex. It's their story, not Obama or Clinton, and I'd encourage people to check it out.

[Saggy]

 

Aparrently someone paid for a propaganda film about Berghazi to be made, what utterly coincidental timing.

 

Ok,

 

So if we're going to call this propaganda then let's at least be fair across the board. That means your Michael Moore, or George Clooney, or whatever VERY IMPORTANT FILM being hoisted onto the American public is also. It's not a one-way street.

 

I always view it as art before politics. I don't agree with Michael Moore, but I respect what he does. Same with Clooney, and yes even (big sigh) Bay. That's the way they should always be viewed. But our Political Correctness has become our Political Culture, and it's hard to separate the two sometimes. Just look at how a revered figure like Eastwood was vilified with American Sniper last year.

 

Now, having seen some clips from the movie, there is very little politics involved. It's the story of the men over there defending the consulate, and later, the annex. It's their story, not Obama or Clinton, and I'd encourage people to check it out.

 

Lol you think I like Michael Moore? I can't even name a movie Clooney has been in besides "Three Kings".

 

My favorite part about American Sniper controversy was when Seth Rogen compared it to a Nazi propaganda film, meanwhile he was busy promoting his own anti-N.Korean propaganda.

 

But come on, is it really a coincidence a movie about Benghazi comes out now? Isn't it based on a book that's been out for awhile...

 

I only saw a trailer and it did seem devoid of politics but I doubt they won't use it strategically to keep Benghazi fresh in the public mind. Someone greenlit it and produced it and I doubt that they timed it this way by accident or happenstance.

[X S]

I always view it as art before politics. I don't agree with Michael Moore, but I respect what he does. Same with Clooney, and yes even (big sigh) Bay. That's the way they should always be viewed. But our Political Correctness has become our Political Culture, and it's hard to separate the two sometimes. Just look at how a revered figure like Eastwood was vilified with American Sniper last year.

 

 

Even Bay? I don't think I've seen one Bay film without an American flag in it. Hell, if I was president, I'd hire him as my propaganda minister. He's that good at selling the 'ol red, white and blue and jamming it up your ass. But seriously, I don't think the new Benghazi film touches on any of the controversy surrounding Clinton, at least that's what I've heard. Rather, I think they're just cashing in on the events that unfolded because it's election season.

 

But this just goes to show that Bay is total hack. He romanticizes American subjects, and cashes in on them; I find it distasteful at best. If you want tasteful filmmaking with conservative themes, then I agree, Spaghetti, Eastwood is well revered and earns my respect. Gran Torino, Million Dollar Baby, and Unforgiven are probably my all-time favorites of his.

 

Excuse me, I'll go take it to the Movies & TV forum now.

Edited January 11, 2016 by X S

[Eutyphro]

O my... http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-polls/011116-789089-hillaryclinton-lead-nearly-vanishes-among-democrats.htm

 

 

 

 

With just 21 days until the presidential primaries officially begin in Iowa, Hillary Clinton's support among Democrats nationally has taken a serious tumble, falling eight points to 43%, according to the latest IBD/TIPP Poll. Support for her chief rival, Bernie Sanders, rose six points to 39%.

 

 

To be fair though, that's the most amazing poll result Bernie ever had, and reality might be different, but what is clear is that Bernie is doing very well.

[Svip]

Had this been back in November, I don't think I nor the media would have given that poll a lot of attention. It could easily be written off as just a fluke.

 

But since it is appearing so close to the Iowa caucuses, it may be a sign of things to come. Using information I've gathered from the good people at FiveThirtyEight, consider the following points as to why this is significant:

 

Pollsters are polling likely voters now, back before December and November, pollsters would just poll whoever wanted to be polled. But pollsters are now - with the run up to the first voting beginning soon - trying to focus their polling on likely voters. They will usually ask the people they poll how likely they are to be voting, and weigh that data against the list of preferred candidates.

 

People are paying more attention now, unlike us, most people who actually vote don't really start paying attention to the presidential election campaign before a few weeks when they have to start voting. This usually means that people in Iowa and New Hampshire are among the first to have a better grasp of who they can vote for, what they stand for and - more importantly - who they are going to vote for. It is likely that Clinton has benefited from this lack of interest in the polls, because people would just say Clinton as they hadn't actually gotten into deciding yet.

 

In fact, it's like 2-4 weeks before the actual voting, to add more to the above point; it's actually right around now that we should see the effect of the extra attention by voters in the polls.

 

Moreover, precedence seems to suggest that it's better to poll bad nationally and good in the individual states, Sanders is doing spectacular in New Hampshire (leading), and pretty well in Iowa (although, not leading). Now he is also doing pretty decent nationally.

 

The timing and the rise suggest positive things for Sanders. But before you get too excited, you should consider that this is only one data point so far. So while it could be a sign of things to come, it might just be another fluke.

 

But I am definitely looking forward to the next polling data. That's worth paying attention to.

Edited January 12, 2016 by Svip

[El Dildo]

y'all watchin that final SOTU or what?

[Queen]

I was dozing in and out of it, but as expected, he patted himself on the back and made indirect jabs at Trump. But what I found most amusing, was Paul Ryan's facial reactions to some of the things Obama said. I'm hoping to find some clips on Youtube later on.

[El Dildo]

well it's all the usual sh/t.

that's to be expected.

 

I will say this. comparing the Cold War space-race with the modern race to cure cancer was a pretty cool idea.

his speech worked on many levels but he also knew that there's literally nothing to lose. he wants his legacy to be about moving the country into the future, and despite all the focus on war (and he talked about terrorism, the troops, etc) he still managed to finish on a note about social progress and individual ingenuity. that's why I like the killing cancer analogy. you have to embrace people because you never know where those kinds of breakthroughs will come from. he managed to talk about the corrosive nature of division at least, and the hopeful optimism of community.

 

but you know, he's probably faking it.

/Fox News

[Creed Bratton]

O my... http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-polls/011116-789089-hillaryclinton-lead-nearly-vanishes-among-democrats.htm

 

 

 

 

With just 21 days until the presidential primaries officially begin in Iowa, Hillary Clinton's support among Democrats nationally has taken a serious tumble, falling eight points to 43%, according to the latest IBD/TIPP Poll. Support for her chief rival, Bernie Sanders, rose six points to 39%.

 

 

To be fair though, that's the most amazing poll result Bernie ever had, and reality might be different, but what is clear is that Bernie is doing very well.

That was yesterday. This is today: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-01122016-htmlstory.html#633

 

Feel the Bern!

[Eutyphro]

Yep, was going to post that, and other polls. The Bern just got real, the Bern is happening, etc..

[Svip]

I should point out, for the Democratic Iowa Caucuses there are currently four (4) fresh[1] polls:

 

Two has Sanders leading (with +5 and +3, respectively) and the two others have Clinton leading (with +6 and +3, respectively). Averaging only these four polls, gives Clinton and Sanders 45.5% and 45.25%, respectively. Rather a dead heat. Sanders peaks of the two with 49% in the Quinnipiac University poll. (O'Malley has an average of 5%.)

 

Sources for the four polls (the numbers in brackets are the candidates' percentages in each poll, in the order of: Clinton, Sanders, O'Malley):

• Public Policy Polling (46%, 40, 8)
• Quinnipiac University (44%, 49, 4)
• Marist College (48%, 45, 5)
• American Research Group (44%, 47, 3)

 

[1] Fresh by the definition of being from within the last week. And that matters in the primaries, as public opinion changes rapidly.

[Eutyphro]

Who'd ever thought he'd actually, really, truthfully, realistically, when all is considered... have a chance..? And now he does.

And where's Irviding at to join the party? Nobody feels the Bern like he does.

[Svip]

FiveThirtyEight currently has the following two predictions for the Democratic Iowa caucuses:

 

 

 

Note: These are not polling averages, but rather statistics models based on polling averages, among other things.

 

It's important to note how significant Clinton's decline for her chances of winning since this year opened. Pay attention to the dates on the x-axis; this graph only goes little over a month back. And Sanders' surge has only been over the past 6 days.

 

A 538 forecast of 80%+ tends to be a lock (in 2012, they gave Obama 97% chance of winning the day before the election), and as election day draws nearer, it obviously gets easier and easier to make a prediction. But the point here is obvious; until around the 7 January, Iowa seemed like a lock for Clinton. Now the whole thing is up in arms.

 

538 has their own explanation of their models, but I will summarise it here quickly. polls-only are basically the state polls' average with some minor adjustments (undecided voters are spread among the candidates according to their polling, each poll is weighed according to 538's own rating of the pollsters, newer polls are weighed higher than older polls, etc.). polls-plus is the method of the polls-only plus some more (hence its name); in addition it also weighs each candidate's endorsements (which Clinton is fiercely dominating) and the national polls as well (note: national polls may weigh negatively if a candidate is rising in the national poll but not the state polls).

 

Both models should converge near election day, as the additional parameters for polls-plus begins to even out.

 

For some statistics, running the models on previous presidential elections, polls-only accurately predicted the results 43% of the time, while polls-plus accurately predicted the results 57% of the time. (Note: The polls-only accurate results are not just a subset of the polls-plus' accurate results.)

[Creed Bratton]

I wonder what would happen to Hillary if they decide to indict her over those e-mails. It's probably not going to happen, but it would be fun if it did just to see if it would have an impact on her campaign. And just look at the kind of dirt they can dig up on her in the primaries, and this bitch thinks she stands a chance against Republicans who are masters at digging up dirt and attacking from all sides. She'd probably be devastated in the general elections.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

 

O my... http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials-polls/011116-789089-hillaryclinton-lead-nearly-vanishes-among-democrats.htm

 

 

 

 

 

With just 21 days until the presidential primaries officially begin in Iowa, Hillary Clinton's support among Democrats nationally has taken a serious tumble, falling eight points to 43%, according to the latest IBD/TIPP Poll. Support for her chief rival, Bernie Sanders, rose six points to 39%.

 

To be fair though, that's the most amazing poll result Bernie ever had, and reality might be different, but what is clear is that Bernie is doing very well.

 

That was yesterday. This is today: http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-01122016-htmlstory.html#633

 

Feel the Bern!

At the end of the day, the last UK General Election provided the truth about polls.... They predicted a right mess, with no party in overall control and months of negotiation! In reality the Tories won comfortably and proved the polls were about as useless as the media idiots who ran with them during the run up.

 

We need to wait on the actual result, go and put your bet on now and wait on the actual Primaries to start running. Then when the results start coming in we can actually start putting together the data, not speculating.

 

Polls are nothing but opinion and until the last minute the average Joe will change his vote.

 

OT : I always enjoy the American Election system, it's nasty backbiting and dirty tactics, but bloody hell it drags on for too long....

Edited January 13, 2016 by Sikee Atric

[Svip]

While the UK election was a big mishap for pollsters everywhere, it also indicated the problem with the way that polls are being used. But even for that particular election, writing them off as 'useless' would be oversimplifying matters. It is not completely unlikely that a lot of Tory voters came out of the woodwork because the polls were showing a possible stalemate.

 

We also don't know whether the polls compensated for voting exchanges, i.e. changing votes with another voter in another constituency where their party vote might matter more, seeing as it's a misnomer to call the UK Election just an election, since it's really 650 elections, each resulting in one candidate. In fact, because of this, the UK elections are far harder to predict than any other election system, including the US.

 

Not to dive too deeply into the UK elections result, it did have a major voting error. For instance, the Tories won 50.7% of the seats, but only 36.9% of the votes (or a voting error of 13.8 percentage points). SNP had a voting error of 3.9 percentage points. And so on.

 

Even the US election system with all its quirks (a lot of them inspired by the UK system) does not have voting errors of this level, and it is rather undemocratic, if you ask me. (Of course, some prefer it as the UKIP may have gotten 12.7% of the vote, but only 1 seat, a voting error of 12.5 percentage points.)

 

Of course, all this means that pollsters will just have to muddle through the system that the UK persists with. But looking at a whole, polling is actually doing pretty well. Polls are pretty decent at predicting election results in non-crazy election systems (generally non-English speaking countries) and even in some with more crazy systems, like the US. (If you look at the UK polls from before the election, they were pretty right on the money when it came to predicting the national percentage of the votes, they just didn't predict the right result.)

 

So in short; polls are not useless and definitely not at this stage. This is the time when people are paying attention, and this will reflect in the polls. And now that Sanders has risen in the polls, the media is talking about it, effectively giving him more free airtime. Exactly what his campaign needs; exposure.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Svip

[Dirtbag101]

I'm Irish and I have had a keen interest in American politics all my life and I can say hand on heart it doesn't matter who wins because it's the people who put them there(campaign funders) who call the shots most of the time. Also a two party system is a terrible idea that leads to a very slow process where the reds try block the blues a vice versa. I hope I don't upset anyone by saying this but the last real president was shot for upsetting the money men back in 1963. Everyone since then has been hand picked and groomed for the job.

[Svip]

I'm Irish and I have had a keen interest in American politics all my life and I can say hand on heart it doesn't matter who wins because it's the people who put them there(campaign funders) who call the shots most of the time. Also a two party system is a terrible idea that leads to a very slow process where the reds try block the blues a vice versa. I hope I don't upset anyone by saying this but the last real president was shot for upsetting the money men back in 1963. Everyone since then has been hand picked and groomed for the job.

 

I think you might be confusing your interest in American politics for your interest in conspiracy theories.

Edited January 13, 2016 by Svip

[Eutyphro]

The theory that American politics is money driven isn't a conspiracy though, that's an institutional analysis. Research has also pointed out that the richer you are, the stronger the correlation between policy and your views. Bernie's campaign, as far as I'm aware, is different though, but it is questionable whether Bernie as a president would get done more than Obama considering congress will still be filled with bought politicians. The Kennedy stuff though, yeah, that's a concpiracy. People also tend to conveniently forget Kennedy started the war in vietnam.

[El Dildo]

Dirtbag might not have been super eloquent but he's basically right...

[gooeyhole]

I'm Irish and I have had a keen interest in American politics all my life and I can say hand on heart it doesn't matter who wins because it's the people who put them there(campaign funders) who call the shots most of the time. Also a two party system is a terrible idea that leads to a very slow process where the reds try block the blues a vice versa. I hope I don't upset anyone by saying this but the last real president was shot for upsetting the money men back in 1963. Everyone since then has been hand picked and groomed for the job.

The multi-party system seems overrated, like two parties will team up to sh*t on the other party and drive them into obscurity. Not the best way to word it, so forgive me, lol.

[X S]

Well, here's the filp-side of that coin.

 

 

[Svip]

Not sure what you are implying there, X S. But if your suggestion is that the only alternative to the US' two-party system is a single party absolute majority multi-party system that is prevalent in the Commonwealth, then you are thoroughly ignorant.

 

As I've stated many times, I actually like the UK voting system less than the US'. But I am not advocating for any of those. I would advise you to look beyond the English speaking world.

 

Indeed, the most common form of representative democracies are multi-party parliamentary systems with proportional representation rather than a first past the post system. These systems manifest themselves by having multi-parties, but none of which have an absolute majority in parliament. This is good, because that means you negotiate with parties. Yes, natural alliances form in parliament, but on certain issues, minority or fringe parties might be heard on issues that matter to them.

 

This means that if you actually have a minority opinion, there is a chance to get your voice heard where the people are actually represented. This is unlikely to be the case in a first past the post system, because your vote for a minority opinion won't carry any weight in another voting district.

 

Let me give you, as an example, the - though unusual - situation in the current Danish parliament. There are 9 parties represented in parliament (as they are seated in parliament, from the left):[1] Red-Green Alliance (14, 8%, 7.8%), Socialist People's Party (7, 4%, 4.2%), Social Democrats (47, 26.9%, 26.3%), Social Liberal Party (8, 4.6%, 4.6%), Alternative (9, 5.1%, 4.8%), Danish People Party (37, 21.1%, 21.1%), Venstre - Liberal Party (34, 19.4%, 19.5%), Conservative People's Party (6, 3.4%, 3.4%) and Liberal Alliance (13, 7.4%, 7.5%).

 

The unusual part herein is the fact that currently Venstre has the government all on its own, despite being only the third largest party in parliament. The reason is that Venstre managed gather the support from 90 mandates in parliament (the 'blue block' of Venstre, Danish People's Party, the Conservatives and Liberal Alliance) for a majority in the 179[2] unicameral parliament.

 

But despite the odd situation, what you should be paying attention to is how close the arrangement of the seats aligns with the voters' votes. There are some minor irregularities, but none of them ever gets higher than one percentage point. The regularities stems from the requirement of 2% to get into parliament. That means that votes cast for parties that did not make it and independent candidates are lost. Those votes amounted to a total of 1% of the votes.

 

See if your own system has the same amount of accuracy and lack of useless votes.

 

[1] The numbers in brackets are: Seats in parliament, percentage of parliament that is, percentage of votes in last election.

[2] Yes, for those paying attention, the numbers I listed only sum to 175, but that's because 4 of the mandates are representing the Faroe Islands and Greenland (2 each), each represented by their own local party so they are usually not counted. They all sided with the 'red block' (generally considered the opposition at this point) to total 89 mandates.

[X S]

The implication made was that the grass is never greener on the other side.

 

Should we care to discuss the benefits of a two-party system, or will they not be unconventional enough? Because that's the rationale behind it: political and economic stability.

[seven50iL]

Lmao at Jeb! My boy Trump was killing tonight Ted was too. Great night.

 

Hilary might as well take her L before she makes herself a fool against Trump on tv. Let alone the one the most important elections of US history...

Edited January 15, 2016 by seven50iL

[gooeyhole]

The debate was a weird one. Nobody won. Rubio was the crowd favorite, Trump started slow but the crowd warmed up to him. Christie & Cruz ganged up on Rubio, but Rubio took down Cruz pretty hard, Cruz got booed.

 

Cruz also looked bad when Trump went on about his New York comments. Also, halfway through the debate, a loud group in the audience chanted WE WANT RAND. Thought that was pretty cool.

 

 

 

[El Dildo]

Lmao at Jeb! My boy Trump was killing tonight Ted was too. Great night.

 

Hilary might as well take her L before she makes herself a fool against Trump on tv. Let alone the one the most important elections of US history...