**** Elections thread *****

[wufwugy]

i mean cmon. shitposting this biting will never happen again

https://twitter.com/ObamaMalik/statu...02741989560320

[a500lbgorilla]

lol that one uncle, but he's part of the president's family

[boost]

wufwugy

Is there any evidence that points towards a Clinton win?

[a500lbgorilla]

https://twitter.com/ObamaMalik/statu...02741989560320

hahaha this fucking guy

[Poopadoop]

An issue with my forecast is that I'm assuming Asian/other will not stray that much from where it was in 2012, yet there is evidence to suggest that the demo could actually favor Trump, which would be a huge twist. My modeling uses what I think are pretty conservative estimates of the increase in white turnout/vote and decrease in blacks. But if I use more liberal estimates that I think are in the cards, states like Jersey and Delaware and Washington and Illinois start flipping.

Well an issue my forecast of a close but not neccesarily overwhelming Clinton win is that I actually use real evidence and not just things I heard on a peculiarly biased website where i get my evidence from. But that's my own fault for being so biased by objective evidence and ignoring the ghoul and other undead vote.

Sorry forgot to mention the vote of the rigged media who also adds at least 1% to the dead vote.

[Poopadoop]

Also, forgot to mention the inestimable number of shy paedophile and sex abuser voters who will definitely align with Trump. 'tis definitely a landslide of at least 400 EV because if there's nothing America wants more it is to show the entire world how they stand for their right to be perverse sexual deviants.

[wufwugy]

wufwugy

Is there any evidence that points towards a Clinton win?

Great question.

The best evidence she has is the topline of the polls as well as that pollsters are pretty consistently getting big D+ response samples.

The topline is good evidence if we assume the parameters pollsters are using are relatively accurate. I do not think they are accurate and I've tried to back this up previously. Examples of this are where primaries turnout for Democrats was significantly lower than in 2008, yet pollsters are consistently projecting an even larger turnout for Democrats than in 2008. This does not pass the smell test. Where is this turnout gonna come from? It won't be from blacks nor youths. It could be from Hispanics (more specifically Mexicans), and there is indeed evidence to suggest that turnout among Hispanics will probably increase this cycle. She could get increased turnout from women. That may be in the cards, but a counter to that is that there should definitely be increased turnout for Trump with men, so it may be a wash. She definitely will not get increased turnout among whites. All in all, the explanation for the pollsters weighting for greater turnout for Hillary than for Obama 2008 points to either agenda-driven polling or laziness.

The consistent D+ samples are probably a better sign for Clinton. However, there seems to also be something fucky going on there. Apparently email leaks from the Clinton camp have shown them discussing deliberately oversampling demographics favorable to them in order to sway public opinion. Additionally, the D+ sampling is too consistent to make statistical sense. Even if the population will turnout by D+10, we would expect a decent amount of polls to come in with raw samples of R+. Yet they're not. The largest quantity of R+ samples I've seen have been the last week of IBD tracking polls, which every day have had R+ samples and yet have been weighted to reflect ~D+7.

Another thing that helps Clinton is that there are still "values" conservative NeverTrump people. I think this is a wash considering the large number of Bernie Democrats that aren't voting for her.

Another potentially positive point for Clinton is that Independents do not appear to fall for Trump at >15 points. This means that if there is big D turnout, she can win.



On the evidence for Trump victory side, it appears that today Clinton's camp has cancelled appearances in Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio. This would mean that they already know they've lost those. Meanwhile the polls had her leading those big league. Given that Pennsylvania only ran 2.5 points more blue than Ohio in 2012, abandoning Ohio would suggest that she's at best neck and neck in PA. I think it suggests that she's behind in PA because if she was within 3 of Ohio she would not abandon it. This all assumes she really has left those states. A decent amount of what comes from a handful of the sources I use is not accurate.

[Savy]

You realise people cancel appearances in places they put down as wins too right? The idea is to battle it out in close seats not waste your time in places where you already have it won. I'd imagine the people running her campaign are going off the real evidence that everyone else uses rather than your posts on here.

Also if they're pushing all this fake poll shit and trying to rig it then what is the point when it completely undermines the reliability of polls in the future & is so exposed come the end of the cycle? Also why are there no people exposing this? Why are there no people doing the same thing on the opposite side? Do polls really play that big a part of how people vote in the first place? It doesn't all add up.

[wufwugy]

You realise people cancel appearances in places they put down as wins too right? The idea is to battle it out in close seats not waste your time in places where you already have it won. I'd imagine the people running her campaign are going off the real evidence that everyone else uses rather than your posts on here.

The early vote data in those states are far more favorable to Republicans than it was in 2012. While you are correct in theory, in this case it would not be that they're leaving those states because they think they're winning. In addition, even if they were 10 points ahead in those states, they would not leave since Trump's path to victory is devastating if he loses one of those states. Also the other states where the Clinton camp has its remaining rallies are in states that favor Clinton even more.

Also if they're pushing all this fake poll shit and trying to rig it then what is the point when it completely undermines the reliability of polls in the future & is so exposed come the end of the cycle?

You're telling me. This is why those that claim the polls are deliberately misleading also claim that they will tighten as the race gets close. This happens in lots of races. We don't know to what degree, if any, that it is due to unethical behavior. The existence of "bad" polls isn't evidence of unethical behavior. Regardless, the answer to your question does include the fact that pollsters can retain credibility by converging on the final result close to the election.

Also why are there no people exposing this?

Lots of people are. The mainstream media is not. Most people do not hear about it because the vast majority of people consume mainstream sources even when they think they do not.

Why are there no people doing the same thing on the opposite side?

Probably because credibility would be stripped immediately. Polling exists in a Democrat ethos, and all pollsters -- except a small few -- are hardcore Democrats. The vast majority of polling entities are owned by hardline Democrats. Not all of them are, but ones that aren't also exist within an establishment Republican (like Fox) ethos as well as require the Democrat ethos giving them credibility.

In order for a pollster to fudge numbers for the opposite side, they would have to give the finger to the entire juggernaut of mainstream media. It's not really something that happens. There is no incentive to do this since it would only work if somebody had a strong enough foresight that their side would win. That would be the only way they could survive the election cycle. The mainstream media owns the airwaves even when it looks like they don't. Instead people take to twitter and other forums to try to expose the polls using their methodologies and parameters. A polling company trying to fudge numbers for the other side would get little air time too. The media already doesn't report polls that don't favor Clinton.

Do polls really play that big a part of how people vote in the first place?

Very much so. They're a persuasion tactic to get undecideds on your side (everybody likes backing a winner) and demoralizing the opposition.

In this particular cycle, I think it backfires.


BTW none of what I posted here is evidence for unethical polling. I merely responding to your questions with the rationale behind why things could be a certain way. I would use an entirely different approach if I were trying to demonstrate unethical polling.

[wufwugy]

Well an issue my forecast of a close but not neccesarily overwhelming Clinton win is that I actually use real evidence and not just things I heard on a peculiarly biased website where i get my evidence from. But that's my own fault for being so biased by objective evidence and ignoring the ghoul and other undead vote.

Sorry forgot to mention the vote of the rigged media who also adds at least 1% to the dead vote.

I'm not sure why you think I just go on opinion or on what people say. Most of what I've posted in this thread has come from me reading the poll pdfs and pointing out reasoning flaws.

What I find strange is the great defense of the polls. The polls assume Clinton will get 2008 Obama levels with blacks. Nobody in their right mind believes this. It is after putting together a large number of these types of bad reasoning in the polls that I claim they're way off. And now that election results have begun coming in, they have shown the polls are indeed way off.

[boost]

In speech and thought "No one in their right minds" should not be synonymous with "No one who agrees with me"

[wufwugy]

In speech and thought "No one in their right minds" should not be synonymous with "No one who agrees with me"

Point taken. But to be clear I'm not saying people who disagree with me (at least I'm not trying to). It takes some wind-surfing-a-tornado level mental gymnastics to think blacks will turnout more for her than for Obama.

[boost]

Yeah, I mean, I think you're not wrong but you're being at least a little hyperbolic. If there is no reason given for predicting a higher black turnout for Clinton than Obama, it certainly is a place to dig, but there are plenty of explanations that are on the non conspiratorial side of Occam's razor. Remember, BLM did not exist pre Obama. It didn't exist until after his second term had started. Sure Obama got a big turn out from the black vote simply by dint of being black, but Clinton is running on a platform on continuity of the first black president and in support of a highly energised movement that likely makes single issue voters out of non voters.

Your critique of this prediction works for the opposite prediction eight years ago: the expectation that Obama will see a lower turn out from the black vote than Kerry did is on its face silly-- but this works because there was far more congruence in the mood of the country in 2004 and 2008 which rendered Obama's blackness far closer to an isolated variable.

edit: to be clear, I'm not arguing this as fact, I don't have the data to support any of this. My point isn't to prove that Clinton will see a bump in the black vote over Obama, but instead that she could and that there are potential reasons to predict as much which do not amount to lolriggedpolls.

[Poopadoop]

It depends on how they arrive at their estimate: If they just assume some large number of black people will vote because that gives them the result they want, then yeah that's wrong. And they wouldn't be taken seriously as a pollster if they did that.

But if they're basing it on the number of black poll respondents that report that they're going to vote/have already voted, then that's perfectly reasonable and you can't argue that 'no way polls are rigged cause Clinton isn't black like Obama'.

[Poopadoop]

On the evidence for Trump victory side, it appears that today Clinton's camp has cancelled appearances in Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio. This would mean that they already know they've lost those. Meanwhile the polls had her leading those big league.

Some pretty fuzzy logic here: She's not campaigning in places where the polls have her way ahead, therefore she knows she's losing them. How does she 'know' she's losing when the evidence says she's winning?

[Poopadoop]

I'm not sure why you think I just go on opinion or on what people say. Most of what I've posted in this thread has come from me reading the poll pdfs and pointing out reasoning flaws.

Sure, but you usually only speak in generalities - e.g.., polls are rigged by saying blacks will turn out in 2012 numbers. When you've actually argued about a specific issue with a specific poll or polls, I've seen that it comes down to you not understanding polling well enough. The Arizona poll where you criticized it for being D+ something is one example where you argued a bias existed where I had to explain to you how they arrived at their final (unbiased) figures. Thus your credibility as a critic of polls is low. Maybe you should try to learn how the polls work so you can evaluate them objectively; then you could provide specific critiques that are actually valid.

As it is, you sound like you're just parroting whatever conservative website that is trying to argue the polls are rigged using faulty reasoning.

[wufwugy]

Some pretty fuzzy logic here: She's not campaigning in places where the polls have her way ahead, therefore she knows she's losing them. How does she 'know' she's losing when the evidence says she's winning?

The evidence I am referring to is the early vote. The polls, up until very recently (like today, maybe yesterday), had her quite a bit ahead. But as we all know, the actual voting results matter more than the polls, and those results in OH FL and NC are devastating to Clinton. She is significantly underperforming Obama at this point 4 years ago and projections have Trump winning all those states handily.

In North Carolina, which Romney won in 2012, R is down but D is down even more than R, and I is up way more than 2012. I went for Romney and in the 2016 primaries went Republican by 10 points. Clinton's camp would be reasonable to project a loss here.

In Ohio, there is significant increase in white vote and decrease in black vote. I forget the other numbers, but they point at an R win. This, along with the movement seen from early vote in the rest of the Midwest, suggests she should embrace for a big loss in Ohio.

In Florida, it's basically Clinton's nightmare. D early vote is way behind where it was in 2012. R early vote is high and climbing as the late opening R counties are coming in.

[wufwugy]

Sure, but you usually only speak in generalities - e.g.., polls are rigged by saying blacks will turn out in 2012 numbers. When you've actually argued about a specific issue with a specific poll or polls, I've seen that it comes down to you not understanding polling well enough. The Arizona poll where you criticized it for being D+ something is one example where you argued a bias existed where I had to explain to you how they arrived at their final (unbiased) figures. Thus your credibility as a critic of polls is low. Maybe you should try to learn how the polls work so you can evaluate them objectively; then you could provide specific critiques that are actually valid.

As it is, you sound like you're just parroting whatever conservative website that is trying to argue the polls are rigged using faulty reasoning.

I misread that thing. I thought the D+ was the weight, not the raw sample. Reading things incorrectly happens from time to time. You'd be well advised to not read more into this. I admitted I read it wrong as soon as you pointed it out. Even though you interpret this as reducing my credibility, it actually gives me more credibility since it shows that I change my claims based on new information.

[Poopadoop]

You can say you misread it, but fact is you either didn't understand it and/or you hadn't looked into it critically but had accepted someone else's conclusion. Either that or it's a major coincidence that you and someone who runs a conservative website happened to reach the same flawed conclusion independently.

Moreover, that's the only poll you bothered to mention by name (though in fact you didn't - you only gave enough information that I could dig it out myself). The rest of the time you just seem to be speaking of polls in general which makes it impossible to evaluate your claims.

So here's a challenge for you: Name a couple of polls that are overestimating the black vote. Explain how they are doing it and why their reasoning is flawed. Put links up to their methods.

[wufwugy]

You can say you misread it, but fact is you either didn't understand it and/or you hadn't looked into it critically but had accepted someone else's conclusion. Either that or it's a major coincidence that you and someone who runs a conservative website happened to reach the same flawed conclusion independently.

The flawed conclusion was mine alone. I misread it because frankly I'm a little tired of this stuff so I haven't been reading them that closely the last couple weeks. I just briefly read something and thought it said something different than it said.

Moreover, that's the only poll you bothered to mention by name (though in fact you didn't - you only gave enough information that I could dig it out myself). The rest of the time you just seem to be speaking of polls in general which makes it impossible to evaluate your claims.

I have discussed specific polls many, many times here. I don't do it that often anymore because the response is always the same. There's something about me that galvanizes people, and they just gotta disagree.

So here's a challenge for you: Name a couple of polls that are overestimating the black vote. Explain how they are doing it and why their reasoning is flawed. Put links up to their methods.

How about I don't? I did this stuff extensively a while back when I was busy reading the pdfs and it didn't matter then. It won't matter now.

Now that the early voting has started, I don't care about the polls much anymore. Now is when my claims are put to the test. So far I appear to have been right. The early voting is showing a much different result than the polls that I criticized did. Go figure.

[a500lbgorilla]

[boost]

Wuf, news flash: it's not up to you to determine how credible you are.

The weighting of the polls was a key part of your argument, a part of your argument that was built on a faulty premise. The weighting of the polls actually means the opposite of what you thought it meant. Now you realize this, yet your position has not shifted at all. If this was not a key part of your argument, then you have conveyed your ideas poorly, and that's on you. If it is a key part of your argument, then your insistence on remaining just as steadfastly adamant makes you less credible.

You may be right about all of this, but that has zero bearing on your credibility. Hand waving and shifting goal posts is not conducive to a productive exchange of ideas. And again, if you feel you're not doing this, that's fine, but you should understand that if everyone else thinks you are, that's probably what matters-- the common denominator is you.

Also, I'm having a tough time finding anyone who reads the early voting stats the way you do. Mostly I see articles saying, on the national level, it looks to be favoring Clinton, but that not a ton can be reasonable garnered from early votes. Fox news reads it as predictive of neck and neck races in swing states, but even they don't see signs of Trump landslides. So, again, maybe the media is biased, the polls are rigged, etc, but for your claims to be true, a series of fantastic premises need also be true, yet you're coming up more than a bit short of providing fantastic evidence.

[boost]

Now that the early voting has started, I don't care about the polls much anymore. Now is when my claims are put to the test. So far I appear to have been right. The early voting is showing a much different result than the polls that I criticized did. Go figure.

I will go figure: Early voters are self selecting and tend to not, as a group, be representative of voters overall. Further, different types of early voting tend to attract different types of voters. So early early voting returns, when early voting is predominantly mail in, will show one thing, but in person early voting will show another. The polls you refer to are not attempting to predict the early vote. You're trying to use a screwdriver to drive a nail and complaining about the results.

[wufwugy]

Wuf, news flash: it's not up to you to determine how credible you are.

Absolutely. I added the type of logic that can be derived from the fact that those with credibility are never those who aren't wrong, but those who admit when they are wrong and change views accordingly.

The weighting of the polls was a key part of your argument, a part of your argument that was built on a faulty premise. The weighting of the polls actually means the opposite of what you thought it meant. Now you realize this, yet your position has not shifted at all. If this was not a key part of your argument, then you have conveyed your ideas poorly, and that's on you. If it is a key part of your argument, then your insistence on remaining just as steadfastly adamant makes you less credible.

It was one poll where I thought the unweighted data was the weighted data. This poll was not relevant nor essential for my arguments.

Poopy has made it sound much different than it is.

Also, I'm having a tough time finding anyone who reads the early voting stats the way you do.

I bet. All the mainstream coverage I've seen has been misleading. It's something like how they show that D is beating R in North Carolina, and then they use that to claim it's a good sign for D. Not so fast. D always beats R in NC. It has a ton of legacy Democrats commonly found in the Deep South and Appalachian states who vote red in presidential elections. From what I've seen, the totality of the race shows both D and R down in NC, but Independents up big time. NC turnout looks more favorable for R than it did in 2012. The next time I come across the data for this, I'll post it.

Mostly I see articles saying, on the national level, it looks to be favoring Clinton, but that not a ton can be reasonable garnered from early votes. Fox news reads it as predictive of neck and neck races in swing states, but even they don't see signs of Trump landslides. So, again, maybe the media is biased, the polls are rigged, etc, but for your claims to be true, a series of fantastic premises need also be true, yet you're coming up more than a bit short of providing fantastic evidence.

Yeah I haven't provided any evidence of this, frankly. I don't bookmark stuff, but I'll keep in mind that maybe I can post it when I see it.

Evaluating the race based on early votes is mostly just about measuring change from the previous elections, because the points you make about how they're different types of voters is generally true.

[wufwugy]

I would like to note that months ago I evaluated this election using a very critical eye. Back then I backed everything up with data. But the last couple weeks I've been mostly just a fan boi, which is why I'm not much presenting data anymore.

I'm just looking forward to the results coming in.

[wufwugy]

We'll call it a brief spell of laziness on my part.

[wufwugy]

Also if the mainstream media is reporting that it's a dead heat, it shows the polls have been wrong since they have had Trump very far behind.

[Poopadoop]

The flawed conclusion was mine alone. I misread it because frankly I'm a little tired of this stuff so I haven't been reading them that closely the last couple weeks. I just briefly read something and thought it said something different than it said.

I have discussed specific polls many, many times here. I don't do it that often anymore because the response is always the same. There's something about me that galvanizes people, and they just gotta disagree.

It's because you make fantastic claims while providing nothing to back them up. When you say 'the evidence shows...' and then don't explain what that evidence is or how it leads to your conclusion, it's fucking annoying.

When you actually present evidence that supports an argument rather than just claiming it's out there somewhere, and that evidence is solid, I'll be the first to say you're right.

[wufwugy]

It's because you make fantastic claims while providing nothing to back them up. When you say 'the evidence shows...' and then don't explain what that evidence is or how it leads to your conclusion, it's fucking annoying.

When you actually present evidence that supports an argument rather than just claiming it's out there somewhere, and that evidence is solid, I'll be the first to say you're right.

i have done that and it makes little difference.

but i'll take your word for it, that in the future it will matter.

[wufwugy]

Okay here's data on North Carolina: http://www.oldnorthstatepolitics.com/

Key points:

"Registered Democrats are 4.2 percent behind their same day 2012 total numbers, while registered Republicans are 4.5 percent ahead of their numbers. Registered unaffiliated voters are 36.9 percent ahead of their same day all absentee ballot totals from 2012. "

Also here's a sizable bump of white votes and big drop of black votes.

[wufwugy]

The above strongly suggests that Trump will win North Carolina by more than Romney did. Perhaps significantly so.

I don't know of a source on Florida that is equally as good as this one, but the conservative sources covering this are a bit more bullish on Florida than North Carolina. Though the data is more scattered, from what I've seen they're right to be more bullish. But I won't mention the reasons why since I don't have the data in front of me. I'll post it if I come across it again.

[Poopadoop]

The graph right below that one on that same website shows fewer white republican voters, about the same democrat, and more 'others'. Doesn't that suggest that those extra white voters are mostly due to a big surge in 'other', combined with a moderate drop in republicans? How does that make Trump a strong favorite?

Edit: And the graph below that shows a yuge majority of the democrat early voters are women. Can't see that being good for Trump.

[Poopadoop]

Seems like one explanation for why fewer blacks are voting early.

In North Carolina, 17 counties controversially decreased the number of early voting locations, said NBC News; this has resulted in long lines at some polling places and lower early voting tallies. NBC said one county, Guilford County, which houses the largely black city of Greensboro, “cut early voting locations from 16 to just one.”

http://heavy.com/news/2016/10/early-...lorado-nevada/

[wufwugy]

The graph right below that one on that same website shows fewer white republican voters, about the same democrat, and more 'others'. Doesn't that suggest that those extra white voters are mostly due to a big surge in 'other', combined with a moderate drop in republicans? How does that make Trump a strong favorite?

Independents broke for Romney and broke for the Republican primaries. They're likely to break for Trump.

Even without this, the D to R swing is 8.7 points. That's very big.

Edit: And the graph below that shows a yuge majority of the democrat early voters are women. Can't see that being good for Trump.

That's pretty normal. Most Democrats are female.

Seems like one explanation for why fewer blacks are voting early.

Could be. From my experience, there is a ton of noise when it comes to reporting on polling locations.

[Poopadoop]

it appears that today Clinton's camp has cancelled appearances in Florida, North Carolina, and Ohio. This would mean that they already know they've lost those.

It appears they forgot to tell Bill.

http://www.twcnews.com/nc/triad/news...g-rallies.html

and Pence didn't seem to get the memo either

He and Mike Pence have events planned in several other tight states over the next couple of days including Michigan, Florida and Pennsylvania.

[Poopadoop]

Independents broke for Romney and broke for the Republican primaries.

Do you have any data regarding this?

Even without this, the D to R swing is 8.7 points. That's very big.

It does seem like something. Not sure how significant it is though. It's not as if there's suddenly more republicans than democrats voting early there.

[Savy]

Wuf, news flash: it's not up to you to determine how credible you are..

I made along post about this and it got deleted by FTR so I'll summarise.

Wuf has been chatting shit for as long as the election has gone on, this is by no means anything against him it's just what he chooses his free time on. He picks a side of an argument and goes after it. This is if anything a credible procedure for any side in an attempt to understand the things they did right/wrong and maybe some basic logic on why.

At the same time what he says has quite literally always been shown to be bollocks. The important thing isn't the result it's the logic and they have also mostly added up to be rubbish as has been states many times. A lot of the things he says are very easily opposed and at the same time a lot of what he says doesn't make sense in the big picture.

As a result the point isn't so much to argue based on truths stated by either side (true of anything) but based on what is being said in little context.

[wufwugy]

At the same time what he says has quite literally always been shown to be bollocks. The important thing isn't the result it's the logic and they have also mostly added up to be rubbish as has been states many times. A lot of the things he says are very easily opposed and at the same time a lot of what he says doesn't make sense in the big picture.

Don't kid yourself. You would think this regardless of what I say.

[wufwugy]

Do you have any data regarding this?

Not on me. I'll post it if I see it again.

It does seem like something. Not sure how significant it is though. It's not as if there's suddenly more republicans than democrats voting early there.

The swing relative to the closest previous elections is what matters. It's typically a very reliable tool for projecting the outcome.

[wufwugy]

It appears they forgot to tell Bill.

http://www.twcnews.com/nc/triad/news...g-rallies.html

and Pence didn't seem to get the memo either

I figured the early reports would not tell the whole story. Note, I included a disclaimer on that one.

[boost]

It's typically a very reliable tool for projecting the outcome.

Showyourwork.gif

[wufwugy]

Showyourwork.gif

It's the orthodox wisdom of politicians and pundits. This is probably because vote for a candidate correlates very highly with turnout by that candidate's party. It's never a 1:1 correlation, but it's usually 5:4 or closer. 5:4 is actually pretty rare and low. In 2012 Obama got 92% of the Democrat vote and Romney got 93% of the Republican vote. Romney got 50% to Obama's 45% of Independents nationwide, so there's part of some evidence Poopy asked for http://ropercenter.cornell.edu/polls...ps-voted-2012/

When there is a shift in party turnout, the orthodox wisdom is that this means that there is a similar shift towards the candidate that represents that party. If we use the 2012 model, an 8.7 point shift from D to R in North Carolina would have given Romney close to a 10 point win instead of the 2 point one he got. We can't ever extrapolate perfectly or make extremely accurate projections with this knowledge, but it is common to use when projecting the winner and whether it might be by a lot or by little.

[JKDS]

Ya, but my household voted Hillary, and thats two votes Trump didnt get. You-cant-explain-that.gif

[Savy]

Don't kid yourself. You would think this regardless of what I say.

It's unlikely that this is the case. I couldn't care less who won the election & at the same time I've taken on board a lot of the economic things you talk about in other threads.

[Poopadoop]

The swing relative to the closest previous elections is what matters. It's typically a very reliable tool for projecting the outcome.

It's also quite possible that all this particular swing tells us is that the state of N. Carolina succeeded in making it harder for blacks to vote early. Not everyone is keen to stand in line for four hours to vote.

[BankItDrew]

It's also quite possible that all this particular swing tells us is that the state of N. Carolina succeeded in making it harder for blacks to vote early. Not everyone is keen to stand in line for four hours to vote.

Are you saying black people are lazy or have ADHD?

[Poopadoop]

I figured the early reports would not tell the whole story. Note, I included a disclaimer on that one.

It's not the early reports. It's that nothing has actually been cancelled. It's that the whole thing was made up.

http://www.snopes.com/white-house-ca...a-appearances/

[Poopadoop]

Are you saying black people are lazy or have ADHD?

Notsureifserious.jpg

I'm saying people don't like to stand in line for four hours, and a lot of the people given that option were black as part of an apparently deliberate strategy of a republican state to fuckulate the democrat vote.

https://thinkprogress.org/north-caro...80d#.oog8xd85d

[BankItDrew]

I didn't see the point in mentioning the ethnicity.

[Poopadoop]

I didn't see the point in mentioning the ethnicity.

The point is that blacks tend to vote democrat. So when a republican-run state government deliberately makes it harder to vote in counties that are predominantly black, it's easy to see their motivation. US Supreme Court already ordered N. Carolina to stop some other cheap voter rights abuses they were trying to pull, so it seems pretty clear it's deliberate.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-...ina-1472673999

It's also a sad day for democracy. Everyone should have the opportunity to vote early without standing in line for four hours, not just the people in counties that are more likely to share the political views of the party that's running the election in that state.

[wufwugy]

It's also quite possible that all this particular swing tells us is that the state of N. Carolina succeeded in making it harder for blacks to vote early. Not everyone is keen to stand in line for four hours to vote.

While that can be the case, it's important to note the enormous quantity of noise on reporting of this (fake) issue. The vast majority of the claims about blacks having their voting rights restricted that I've seen over the last several years have been hoaxes. Things like shutting down centers that got very little activity and adding to centers that get a lot of activity regularly makes the news as harming black people by shutting down where they can vote. 2012 saw hoax after hoax of this stuff.

It is a very unlikely to be true explanation here.

[wufwugy]

The point is that blacks tend to vote democrat. So when a republican-run state government deliberately makes it harder to vote in counties that are predominantly black, it's easy to see their motivation. US Supreme Court already ordered N. Carolina to stop some other cheap voter rights abuses they were trying to pull, so it seems pretty clear it's deliberate.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/supreme-...ina-1472673999

It's also a sad day for democracy. Everyone should have the opportunity to vote early without standing in line for four hours, not just the people in counties that are more likely to share the political views of the party that's running the election in that state.

It's a lot of noise and hoaxes. There was UPROAR about this years ago, yet it turned out to all be a sham.

[Poopadoop]

It's a lot of noise and hoaxes. There was UPROAR about this years ago, yet it turned out to all be a sham.

So the Supreme Court ruling didn't happen?

[wufwugy]

It's not the early reports. It's that nothing has actually been cancelled. It's that the whole thing was made up.

http://www.snopes.com/white-house-ca...a-appearances/

The hoaxes go both ways. FWIW I wasn't referring to this directly, but what I was referring to was not concrete and could have been derived from this. It was a side comment where I claimed it could be false since I come across a lot of false stuff that sounds fun.

[wufwugy]

So the Supreme Court ruling didn't happen?

The ruling happened. The uproar on these things isn't about the rulings or the laws but about the perceived effects of those, which is a lot of guesswork that from my perspective curiously turns out to be greatly overblown.

[wufwugy]

It's unlikely that this is the case. I couldn't care less who won the election & at the same time I've taken on board a lot of the economic things you talk about in other threads.

That's good to hear.

[Poopadoop]

The ruling happened. The uproar on these things isn't about the rulings or the laws but about the perceived effects of those, which is a lot of guesswork that from my perspective curiously turns out to be greatly overblown.

Surely you understand why people get in an uproar over attempts to impede the rights of certain populations of voters though. It doesn't matter if the effect is large or small, the point is its unfair and undemocratic. The Supreme Court should not have to coerce a state into upholding voter rights. And when it does, the state shouldn't go looking for loopholes to find other ways to restrict voter rights.

[Poopadoop]

It's a lot of noise and hoaxes. There was UPROAR about this years ago, yet it turned out to all be a sham.

If you have hard evidence to show that what I've been saying about the N. Carolina situation is incorrect, I'd be open to seeing it.

[wufwugy]

Surely you understand why people get in an uproar over attempts to impede the rights of certain populations of voters though. It doesn't matter if the effect is large or small, the point is its unfair and undemocratic. The Supreme Court should not have to coerce a state into upholding voter rights. And when it does, the state shouldn't go looking for loopholes to find other ways to restrict voter rights.

What I'm saying is that this isn't necessarily the effect. The media paints even the most reasonable regulations (like requiring ID) as egregious infringements on black people.

For North Carolina, the bottom line is that blacks are not having their rights infringed upon. They can get absentee ballots mailed to them. Voting is extremely easy. If it happens to be the case that closing some particular precincts might reduce the black vote (a conjecture that has never been demonstrated), that isn't evidence of infringement on voting rights. Having the right to vote doesn't mean that taxpayers have a duty to hold the hands of people and walk them across the finish line or the duty to operate overly-ineffective precincts or the duty to promote fraud.

[wufwugy]

If you have hard evidence to show that what I've been saying about the N. Carolina situation is incorrect, I'd be open to seeing it.

Google "absentee ballot north carolina" then follow the steps.

Even though it is maybe true that closing certain precincts could result in lower black vote, that is evidence of the voters who didn't turnout being lazy, not of infringement on rights.

[Poopadoop]

What I'm saying is that this isn't necessarily the effect. The media paints even the most reasonable regulations (like requiring ID) as egregious infringements on black people.

You may not like to believe it, but it wasn't just about asking people for basic ID. The law would have imposed strict ID requirements, shortened early voting periods, and eliminated same-day voter registration, among other barriers to voting. The circuit judge who overturned their law said it targeted black voters "with almost surgical precision."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ive-voting-law

And then, when that law got overturned, they went and reduced the number of voting stations available and/or the hours they were opened. And only in those counties in which large numbers of blacks lived.

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/07/493001...north-carolina

Prove me wrong.

[Poopadoop]

Google "absentee ballot north carolina" then follow the steps.

What is this supposed to prove? That you can get an absentee ballot in NC? And what if you want to vote in person, too bad?

Even though it is maybe true that closing certain precincts could result in lower black vote, that is evidence of the voters who didn't turnout being lazy, not of infringement on rights.

Such lame logic here. If you make it harder for some people to vote, and they don't vote as a result, it's entirely their own fault for not jumping through all your hoops.

[wufwugy]

You may not like to believe it, but it wasn't just about asking people for basic ID. The law would have imposed strict ID requirements, shortened early voting periods, and eliminated same-day voter registration, among other barriers to voting. The circuit judge who overturned their law said it targeted black voters "with almost surgical precision."

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...ive-voting-law

And then, when that law got overturned, they went and reduced the number of voting stations available and/or the hours they were opened. And only in those counties in which large numbers of blacks lived.

http://www.npr.org/2016/09/07/493001...north-carolina

Prove me wrong.

First off, I never said that blacks aren't being targeted. They can easily be targeted for a decline in vote turnout without their rights being infringed upon.

Still, it's probably best to avoid that frame. If the majority of bad policy regarding voting happens in black districts, it is wrong to frame cleaning that up as targeting blacks.

Also I agree with those protocols you mentioned. Voting should be kinda hard. It shouldn't be too hard, but it definitely shouldn't be too easy either. There's a balance that would yield low turnout among those who vote for the worst reasons and high turnout among those who vote for the best reasons.

[Poopadoop]

First off, I never said that blacks aren't being targeted. They can easily be targeted for a decline in vote turnout without their rights being infringed upon.

Targeting voters because they belong to a particular racial group is infringing on their rights. That's why the law got overturned.

Still, it's probably best to avoid that frame. If the majority of bad policy regarding voting happens in black districts, it is wrong to frame cleaning that up as targeting blacks.

If you want to argue that the state's motivation was to 'clean up' bad policy that just happened to incidentally involve making it harder for blacks to vote, you really are reaching.

There's a balance that would yield low turnout among those who vote for the worst reasons and high turnout among those who vote for the best reasons.

Democracy is fundamentally about everyone having the same right to vote. It's not about someone else deciding who is worthy of the right to vote, depending on whether they have good or bad reasons to vote in your eyes.

[wufwugy]

Targeting voters because they belong to a particular racial group is infringing on their rights. That's why the law got overturned.

I could have been more clear. I'm talking about the right to vote, which necessarily includes reasonable opportunity to vote, not stuff like discrimination. A lot of which falls under discrimination doesn't effectively deter the right to vote. A lot does.

A lot of this stuff is outdated, in part by ease of access to absentee by every citizen.

If you want to argue that the state's motivation was to 'clean up' bad policy that just happened to incidentally involve making it harder for blacks to vote, you really are reaching.

I have no idea what the motivation was and I don't care.

Democracy is fundamentally about everyone having the same right to vote. It's not about someone else deciding who is worthy of the right to vote, depending on whether they have good or bad reasons to vote in your eyes.

And North Carolinians have that regardless of the court ruling you mentioned.

Also, don't assume that democracy is as great as its touted to be. There are many ways in which the vote has been expanded that have been terrible for society. If you want to be a democracy perfectly, go ahead and have everybody vote. But if you want a better society, you're not gonna want to have everybody vote.

[Poopadoop]

I could have been more clear. I'm talking about the right to vote, which necessarily includes reasonable opportunity to vote, not stuff like discrimination. A lot of which falls under discrimination doesn't effectively deter the right to vote. A lot does.

A lot of this stuff is outdated, in part by ease of access to absentee by every citizen.

The Supreme Court ruling was in the summer of this year. So they hardly felt it was outdated.

I have no idea what the motivation was and I don't care.

The circuit court judge argued it was motivated to hinder blacks from voting. I bet you would care if the law had the same effect on republicans.

And North Carolinians have that regardless of the court ruling you mentioned.

Again, that is your view, not the view of the courts.

Voter rights are not just about it being possible to vote if you jump through a bunch of hoops and then stand in line for four hours, while someone else doesn't have that problem. It's about everyone having the same opportunities to vote.

Also, don't assume that democracy is as great as its touted to be. There are many ways in which the vote has been expanded that have been terrible for society. If you want to be a democracy perfectly, go ahead and have everybody vote. But if you want a better society, you're not gonna want to have everybody vote.

It's a question of principle though isn't it? Either you stand for the right of everyone to be treated equally under the law, including having the same opportunity to vote, as in a democracy, or you stand for something else. It doesn't matter whether YOU think that something else would be better than what the principle of democracy holds, its the creed of your country that its democratic.

If it were only up to the people with power to decide who votes, you'd essentially have a situation where those in power would stay in power until they were overthrown. It's like Winston Churchill said "Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have ever been tried."

[wufwugy]

I'm not saying many of the things you think I'm saying. I don't defend attempts to discriminate against black voters, but that isn't the same thing as deterring ability to vote. Is it wrong to close polling stations based on skin color? Yeah. Does that deter their ability to vote? Not by any reasonable measure. Absentee voting has rendered the need for stations obsolete. I'm not even a fan of absentee voting, because it raises turnout too high, as far as I can tell. I wonder if Washington will ever go non-socialist since we went all-absentee.

Also the law says a lot of things, and a lot of them are wrong. I'm not saying this law is wrong, just that appealing to the law as a source of good ideas is a bad idea.

[Poopadoop]

I'm not saying many of the things you think I'm saying. I don't defend attempts to discriminate against black voters, but that isn't the same thing as deterring ability to vote. Is it wrong to close polling stations based on skin color? Yeah. Does that deter their ability to vote? Not by any reasonable measure. Absentee voting has rendered the need for stations obsolete. I'm not even a fan of absentee voting, because it raises turnout too high, as far as I can tell. I wonder if Washington will ever go non-socialist since we went all-absentee.

The laws were made in the first place to deter blacks from voting. They couldn't have designed them any better without coming right out and saying 'if you're black we're going to make it harder for you to vote.' But you seem to think because blacks have other options that the law shouldn't affect them and they shouldn't complain. Then why make the law in the first place if it's not going to have an impact? It makes no sense.

Arguing that these people are missing out on the chance to vote because they're too lazy to stand in line for four hours is absurd.

And now when you say absentee voting raises the turnout too high, it goes back to what you previously said about the 'wrong' people having the right to vote. It sounds like you would be happier in a fascist state.

Also the law says a lot of things, and a lot of them are wrong. I'm not saying this law is wrong, just that appealing to the law as a source of good ideas is a bad idea.

I was only pointing out that the courts did not agree with your assessment that those laws were obsolete and likely to have no effect. I happen to agree with the courts as do a lot of other people. If you want to hold yourself as a higher authority on voter rights than the courts, that's up to you. But since you seem disenchanted with democracy for giving the 'wrong' people the right to vote, then it seems you're less willing than the courts to uphold the creed of democracy which is the fundamental ideal of your own constitution.

I'd be very surprised if you had the same reaction to someone deciding you were the 'wrong' type of voter and they should try to make it harder for you to vote.

[wufwugy]

The laws were made in the first place to deter blacks from voting. They couldn't have designed them any better without coming right out and saying 'if you're black we're going to make it harder for you to vote.' But you seem to think because blacks have other options that the law shouldn't affect them and they shouldn't complain. Then why make the law in the first place if it's not going to have an impact? It makes no sense.

I think nothing of the sort. The context in which I responded to you was the idea that these protocols make it harder to vote. They don't. Absentee voting is much easier than using booths, and it's cheaper.

Arguing that these people are missing out on the chance to vote because they're too lazy to stand in line for four hours is absurd.

Nowhere did I say that. North Carolina has streamlined no-excuse absentee voting. They could close every damn station in the state and voting would not be any harder. It would be easier actually. States that have gone all absentee get enormous turnout in the general election, probably because of how much easier it is.

And now when you say absentee voting raises the turnout too high, it goes back to what you previously said about the 'wrong' people having the right to vote. It sounds like you would be happier in a fascist state.

You have mischaracterized what I said.

I was only pointing out that the courts did not agree with your assessment that those laws were obsolete and likely to have no effect.

The courts, on this issue, are concerned with race equality at every level, including appearances. I doubt it would be in the court's purview to have an opinion on efficacy of the voting methods.

I happen to agree with the courts as do a lot of other people. If you want to hold yourself as a higher authority on voter rights than the courts, that's up to you.

I hold myself to the authority of reason.

But since you seem disenchanted with democracy for giving the 'wrong' people the right to vote, then it seems you're less willing than the courts to uphold the creed of democracy which is the fundamental ideal of your own constitution.

"Democracy" isn't in the US Constitution.

My "disenchanted" view of democracy is no different than your disenchanted view of letting students write their own grades.

It is wrong to disenfranchise people from voting for the wrong reasons, but that does not mean that it's optimal for everybody to vote. I don't have a solution to this problem. Previously on this board I have proposed the idea of only those who pay net taxes having the right to vote, but as was pointed out then, the idea is not without problems. Regardless, we can certainly do much better than the system we have now, which is one that rewards unjust voting behavior.

[Poopadoop]

There's a balance that would yield low turnout among those who vote for the worst reasons and high turnout among those who vote for the best reasons

There are many ways in which the vote has been expanded that have been terrible for society. If you want to be a democracy perfectly, go ahead and have everybody vote. But if you want a better society, you're not gonna want to have everybody vote.

I'm not even a fan of absentee voting, because it raises turnout too high, as far as I can tell.

And now when you say absentee voting raises the turnout too high, it goes back to what you previously said about the 'wrong' people having the right to vote. It sounds like you would be happier in a fascist state.

You have mischaracterized what I said.

Please, explain what you meant then.

[Poopadoop]

My "disenchanted" view of democracy is no different than your disenchanted view of letting students write their own grades.

There's nothing even remotely comparable in these two things.

[Poopadoop]

Regardless, we can certainly do much better than the system we have now, which is one that rewards unjust voting behavior.

Explain what 'unjust voting behavior' is and how the system rewards it please.

[wufwugy]

Please, explain what you meant then.

People voting for the wrong reasons is different than the wrong people voting, at least by normal connotation. Suggesting fascism shows the connotation applied.

There's nothing even remotely comparable in these two things.

Students shouldnt grade themselves because their incentives are too selfish and they dont have enough information to do so well. Similar exists within voting, which I'll explain next.

Explain what 'unjust voting behavior' is and how the system rewards it please.

Millions of people vote to have the government take from others and give to themselves. If I were to go into a rich lady's house and take 10% of her jewelry, I would be doing something most people consider wrong. But if I were to convince enough of my neighborhood and the surrounding neighborhoods to tell the government to do it for us, we would be "exercising our right." As we can see, a problem arises when we think of voting as a right granted merely being a person who exists. Western societies have injured themselves greatly by allowing a voting system where people behave in unjust ways.

To apply this to "people voting for the wrong reasons," if somebody doesn't work and votes to have people who do work pay more so he can have more welfare, no, he should not be allowed to vote. The degree to which we can create standards regarding voting rights that reflect this is a question. Discarding votes due to what they are is definitely not an answer, in case you thought that's one place I was going. My best (simple) solution involves basing the right to vote on tax status, or something to that effect.

[wufwugy]

[wufwugy]