**** Elections thread *****

[boost]

Wuf, you're reaching. I happen to agree with you that the way people put democracy on a pedestal is naive, but you must know that removing voting options that can reliably be expected to lower voter turnout among a particular demographic is playing dirty. It could be that this demographic simply has a distrust of voting by mail. This distrust can be completely baseless-- but exploiting it by making absentee voting the only reasonable option and then claiming that it's not unfair because the remaining option requires less effort is disingenuous.

Whether any of the hypothetical scenario above is true-- I'm not particularly interested in going there. You can claim it's not, as you have, and that's fine, but you've argued that there is nothing wrong with the scenario itself.

If X reliably causes Y, and Y is bad, it is fairly unimportant what the function on X is. Things can be complicated, of course, for example, it can be said that the guarantee of free speech causes hate speech-- but in totality free speech causes much more and on balance the results of guaranteed free speech are net positive. But I don't see your putting forth the outsized benefits of taking actions to reduce the turnout among a specific group of voters.

[Savy]

Does Trump improving in the polls relate to him doing worse or better in reality?

[Poopadoop]

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

It's irrelevant whether you call them the 'wrong group' or whether you say they're voting for the 'wrong reasons'. You're trying to justify restricting the vote to people who you think are qualified, i.e., people who agree with your political views. If that's not fascism I don't know what is.

[Poopadoop]

I happen to agree with you that the way people put democracy on a pedestal is naive,

Well, thanks.

What I think is naive is people thinking they have a better system than one person, one vote. If you can say nothing else about it, it's at least fair. None of the proposals put forth that I've seen have had that quality, and generally they aren't workable either.

Note that the historical trend worldwide has been towards enfranchisement, not away from it. While the pattern differs somewhat depending on country, generally speaking it follows the pattern of: Early on, only the landowners could vote (in other words, wealthiest white men), then only the wealthy white men, then all white men, then along the way it started to include women and non-whites. And this happened not through revolution but through a natural implementation of liberal ideals.

So basically if you tried to go back to having only the net taxpayers vote, they themselves would probably (sooner or later) pass a law to increase the franchise.

[OngBonga]

source - https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...sian-invaders/
interview - https://sputniknews.com/radio_hard_f...ils-exclusive/

If you would like to listen to some evil Russian propaganda, here (second link above) is my new interview on Sputnik News. The BBC World Service is funded directly by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Its specific purpose is to spread British values and the British view of the world abroad. It specifically, on its dozens of different national services, gives an opportunity to dissident voices who cannot get on their mainstream media. Yet when the Russians do precisely the same thing on a much smaller scale, for example by enabling you to listen to me, this is portrayed as evil propaganda.

Fortunately we have the Henry Jackson Society to defend you from it. The Henry Jackson Society, supported by Liam Fox, Doug Murphy and pretty well every other right wing enthusiast you can name, is of course a great believer in free markets. And its sense of the market has detected that its old product of a constant stream of Islamophobia is becoming dated, and currently buyers want Russophobia. Whatever your phobia, the Henry Jackson Society will have some to sell you, so here we have their new Manual of Russophobia.

Written by Dr Andrew Foxall, Director of the Henry Jackson Society’s so-called Centre for Russian Studies, has by brilliant research exposed the fact that Jeremy Corbyn, Seumas Milne, Tommy Sheppard and Colin Fox have all appeared on Russia Today television. And that a tiny group of left wingers I have never heard of once met in a pub with some Russian nationalists from the Ukraine. Funniest of all is the contention that CND is funded by the Russians.

Given that the Henry Jackson Society is, and always has been, financed by CIA money laundered through American New World Order supporting private foundations, this is rather amusing. This pathetically thin hate manual is now on the desk of every Conservative and New Labour Progress Group MP.

It is of course no coincidence that the overt security service operations operate in close co-ordination with the supposedly covert ones. The same day that the Henry Jackson Society paper was released, the head of MI5 gave an interview to the Guardian about the Russian threat. The Russians are not just coming, they are here! You can’t see them because they are inside your laptop, where the Russian government apparently want to steal all your secrets. Our security services don’t like the competition. That is their job.

Apparently the Russians are out to steal Britain’s industrial secrets, like how the Nissan Qasghqai is built or how the Chinese and French build Hinkley Point. I hope they don’t get the blueprints of the new Dyson. Andrew Parker has of course to work hard as MI5 to find a new enemy. While he has yet again repeated the ludicrous claim that there are 3,000 Islamic terrorists in the UK, he must realise people will query the low productivity of these terrorists when it comes to killing anybody.

Russophobia has of course peaked in the US with Clinton’s claims that it is Russia which is revealing her gross corruption and all her opponents are servants of Russia. She wants to face down Russia in Syria, in order to give it to the Islamic terrorists of whom Andrew Parker worries we have 3,000 in the UK. Clinton’s claims of Russian involvement in hacking her entourage are totally unfounded, hence the lack of evidence. I am however surprised there have been no serious attempts to fabricate some.

Who benefits from this ratcheting up of anti-Russian rhetoric to hotter than cold war levels? Why the armaments and security industries, of course. Expect more donations to politicians and their foundations, and more pesky corruption investigations to be dropped by prosecuting authorities.

The truth is that Russia is not our enemy. There is no chance that Russia will attack the UK or US. It has never happened and it never will. Nor is it remotely likely that Russia will attack any EU member state. The only thing that can make such a contingency even a 0.1% possibility, is the continuing gross anti-Russian rhetoric and propaganda and continued forward stationing of NATO assets. History from WWI to the Gulf shows that military build-up can in itself cause conflict.

The danger to the world is us.

[OngBonga]

American democracy in action...

[OngBonga]

What I think is naive is people thinking they have a better system than one person, one vote.

Do you think that we (either UK or USA) have a "one person one vote" system? Do you think that each person's vote is equal?

[Poopadoop]

Do you think that we (either UK or USA) have a "one person one vote" system? Do you think that each person's vote is equal?

Obviously not. But how does restricting the franchise improve that?

[OngBonga]

I dunno, I didn't really take in the context of your comment, I just took issue with your idea that a "one person one vote" system was optimal. It probably would be if it's what we had.

[Poopadoop]

source - https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archi...sian-invaders/
interview - https://sputniknews.com/radio_hard_f...ils-exclusive/

Makes some interesting points. I wouldn't necessarily agree Islamophobia is failing though, at least not in the US. Look who's running for president. But I can see the value in promoting Russophobia, since the Cold War is still a recent memory and Putin is indeed a dictator, who may or may not be dangerous.

[Poopadoop]

Does Trump improving in the polls relate to him doing worse or better in reality?

Or that he's finally found a way to rig the polls?

[OngBonga]

...and Putin is indeed a dictator, who may or may not be dangerous.

...and this is where you fall victim to the propaganda.

[OngBonga]

Putin is no worse than, say, Obama.

[OngBonga]

Putin is no worse than, say, Obama.

In fairness, I'm no better placed to make this determination than you are to say he's a dictator. I might be wrong, maybe he is. I'm not living in Russia, I haven't been there. I really don't know.

One thing I am certain of though is that our media cannot be trusted to provide a balanced viewpoint on the matter.

[Poopadoop]

...and this is where you fall victim to the propaganda.

Depends on how you want to define 'dictator'.

One thing's for sure, the guy knows how to rig stuff.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graph.../daily-chart-4

[Poopadoop]

In fairness, I'm no better placed to make this determination than you are to say he's a dictator. I might be wrong, maybe he is. I'm not living in Russia, I haven't been there. I really don't know.

One thing I am certain of though is that our media cannot be trusted to provide a balanced viewpoint on the matter.

It's possible we're being propagandized into thinking he's a dangerous dictator when he's basically harmless. I wouldn't put it past the powers that be to bullshit us that way for their own purposes.

But if you don't trust the media that says he's the danger, maybe you also shouldn't trust the media that says we're the danger. What are THEIR motivations for wanting people to believe THAT?

[OngBonga]

One thing's for sure, the guy knows how to rig stuff.

haha this is piss funny coming from someone who supports Clinton.

[OngBonga]

But if you don't trust the media that says he's the danger, maybe you also shouldn't trust the media that says we're the danger. What are THEIR motivations for wanting people to believe THAT?

What is Craig Murray's motivation? He's a truther. And not a turther in the context of 9/11, which he doesn't believe was a Western conspiracy. I mean he seeks the truth. I'm sure I've explained his background before, he got sacked from his role as Ambassador to Uzbekistan because he tried to expose their use of torture, and the UK government's use of information from such torture. He's not "the media", he's an activist. Yes, activism has been infiltrated to fuck and it's hard to know who to believe. But in Murray's case, I at least believe he is sincere, regardless of whether he is factual. That's the difference. Sincerity is what's important. You can't expect people to always be right, just honest.

[OngBonga]

fwiw, I don't listen to what Anonoymous have to say anymore, because they aren't to be trusted. They got infiltrated and are now under the control of the powers that be. Same with that Info Wars guy, he's a plonker. I do believe David Icke is sincere, even though he's a fucking nutcase. I think he truly believes what he says. The problem with Icke though, he's the poster boy for nutjob conspiracists. He accidentally does more damage than good, because most people think he's full of shit when actually a lot of what he says is bang on. He just goes off on too much of a tangent. Murray doesn't, he's well educated and well respected, he knows how to get his point across without foaming at the mouth.

[Poopadoop]

haha this is piss funny coming from someone who supports Clinton.

Of course you think that.

Fwiw, I don't really support Clinton so much as find her less objectionable than Trump. If there was a viable third option of 'anyone but those two' I would almost certainly support them.


And while I certainly think there's something funny going on when the range of poll results is 14% between the most pro-Clinton and the most pro-Trump, I still haven't seen any actual evidence that any of those polls are 'rigged' in the sense of deliberately overstating one candidate's support.

The only poll I've really looked at in detail is the USC/LAtimes one where they used methods that can most generously be described as 'experimental'. There's other polls that are probably doing something suboptimal as well, but I can't be bothered to investigate every single polls' methods in detail.

If someone can actually point out a valid issue with a poll (or link to someone else who does), I'd be interested. Hasn't happened yet. The only complaint I've come across is 'zomgrigged D+ sample' which the poll in question corrected for and which doesn't constitute any evidence at all of 'zomgrigging'.

That said, any pollster who deliberately tried to rig their result wouldn't be stupid enough to not hide the evidence of rigging. So it could be going on.


As for vote rigging, the only evidence I've seen is that it's being done to improve Trump's chances, not Clintons.

[Poopadoop]

The one thing about the polls is even though they widely (too widely imo) disagree on who is winning by how much, they do all tend to trend in the same direction at the same time. This suggests that they at least agree on the general shifts in mood of the population towards or away from either candidate.

[Poopadoop]

What is Craig Murray's motivation? He's a truther.

Maybe he says he's a truther when in reality he's a Russian agent. Maybe his motivation is he's getting paid oodles of rubles and a bunch of Crimean virgins to undermine the West.

It's not just us who are capable of pulling some fast ones to influence public opinion.

[OngBonga]

If someone can actually point out a valid issue with a poll (or link to someone else who does), I'd be interested. Hasn't happened yet. The only complaint I've come across is 'zomgrigged D+ sample' which the poll in question corrected for and which doesn't constitute any evidence at all of 'zomgrigging'.

I guess you didn't watch the youtube link I posted an hour or so ago.

Not a poll, but the Clinton vs Sanders thing was clearly rigged. If that's modern democracy, then we're fucked.

Maybe he says he's a truther when in reality he's a Russian agent. Maybe his motivation is he's getting paid oodles of rubles and a bunch of Crimean virgins to undermine the West.

Maybe. My paranoia doesn't go to these depths though. I distrust government, and have a natural liking for anyone who challenges their propaganda.

[OngBonga]

It's worth noting that Murray is highly critical of Russia and Putin, where he feels it appropriate. He is no fan of their system either. He just tells it how it is with regards to our foreign policy.

I doubt very much he's on their payroll.

[Poopadoop]

I guess you didn't watch the youtube link I posted an hour or so ago.

Not a poll, but the Clinton vs Sanders thing was clearly rigged.

Sorry I was thinking about all the poll and election rigging talk when I posted that. Forgot about the DNC rigging, which is old news. I agree the DNC was likely rigged. I'm disgusted but not shocked.

If that's modern democracy, then we're fucked.

Yup.

[OngBonga]

Proving a poll is rigged is both very difficult, and an act of futility. Polls are not important, they do not form part of the democratic process. They are merely points of interest, a means of satisfying the curiosity of those who want to know who is "winning".

I ignore polls because the people asked can lie or refuse to answer. There is also much less regulation to ensure that those who conduct the polls are not fiddling the numbers to present the picture they wish to paint. They can't be relied upon to give any factual information, and even if they could, they are not an accurate reflection of how people intend to vote. Brexit makes this clear.

[OngBonga]

As for the rigging of actual elections, well this has happened in recent American history. Do you suppose Bush won fairly vs Gore?

[Poopadoop]

Proving a poll is rigged is both very difficult, and an act of futility. Polls are not important, they do not form part of the democratic process. They are merely points of interest, a means of satisfying the curiosity of those who want to know who is "winning".

It's hard to know what goes on in the mind of a wishy-washing undecided, but I'm inclined to agree with Wuf on this that the polls can influence people's choices.

I ignore polls because the people asked can lie or refuse to answer. There is also much less regulation to ensure that those who conduct the polls are not fiddling the numbers to present the picture they wish to paint. They can't be relied upon to give any factual information, and even if they could, they are not an accurate reflection of how people intend to vote. Brexit makes this clear.

Polls aren't meant to be 100% accurate, they only give an estimate. The truth was 51% Brexit, the polls said 48% (or something like that), so they were in the ballpark. The polls didn't flat out predict Bremain they predicted it would be close, and it was.

[Poopadoop]

As for the rigging of actual elections, well this has happened in recent American history. Do you suppose Bush won fairly vs Gore?

It seems to happen in every POTUS election to a greater or lesser extent. Part of the problem is letting each state run its own voting process, which seems to multiply the chance of corruption by 50x relative to just having one centrally-run system.

[Poopadoop]

I read somewhere (can't find the link, but if I do I'll post it) that the reason for Trump's popularity has to do with the widespread cultural notion in the US of American Exceptionalism, which is the idea that their country is somehow special and 'should' be on top of the world and remain there forever. The alternate view, that they're destined to go up and down like every other country, shouldn't apply to them (in their minds). There's a conflict between this idea and the evidence suggesting that the country is in decline internationally. Its foreign policy adventures since WWII have been unrewarding. The economies in places like China are rising fast and the US seems stagnant in comparison.

Put the idea that America has to stay on top forever with the evidence that it's slipping down in the world and you get a huge amount of cognitive dissonance. As a result people look for scapegoats, and external threats like terrorists and immigration, and internal threats (the government) all become targets. So they believe these things need to be cleaned up in order to make America great again. Along comes Trump and promises to do just that, and it strikes a chord.

This article makes a comparison between present-day America and places like 1920s and 30s Germany, where the people largely felt their country didn't have its rightful place in the world and the scapegoats were Versailles (treaty at end of WW1) and the jews.

Obviously comparing present-day America to pre-Nazi Germany is a bit of a stretch, and things are more complicated than the article suggests, but it was an interesting explanation for Trump's popularity.

[OngBonga]

It seems to happen in every POTUS election to a greater or lesser extent. Part of the problem is letting each state run its own voting process, which seems to multiply the chance of corruption by 50x relative to just having one centrally-run system.

Right. So if the probability of corruption is increased fifty fold, then why would you assume the polls are reliable? Why would the polls not be rigged, while the election probably will be?

It's hard to know what goes on in the mind of a wishy-washing undecided, but I'm inclined to agree with Wuf on this that the polls can influence people's choices.

I think this is probably more true of America than it is UK, simply because Americans are so motivated by being the "winningest", which it's worth noting is a stupid American word. But I still think that the volume of people whose political lean is influenced by who is "winning" is not very high. I'm sure there are plenty of people on the fence, but I doubt the majority of them will vote for the candidate that leads the polls. It could also be argued that the polls lure some people into a false sense of security, that Clinton supporters might become complacent, while Trump supporters are motivated. Of course, this is just another flaw with polls. We're left guessing what the impact of the polls are, and how it influences the election. It can influence the result either way, or not at all. Thus, it's unreliable, even when it's sincere.

[OngBonga]

I think Trump's popularity is more to do with the concept that Clinton represents the Globalists, while Trump does not. I think that could be a flawed viewpoint, but it might not be. I'm certain that Clinton is establishment, while I'm unsure about Trump. I think that echoes the general mood, though I stand to be corrected.

I think Clinton is in for a shock. I think Trump will get the anti-Globalist vote, and I think that is a much higher proportion of the electorate than it was five years ago.

[Poopadoop]

Right. So if the probability of corruption is increased fifty fold, then why would you assume the polls are reliable? Why would the polls not be rigged, while the election probably will be?

I'm open to the idea the polls are rigged, but haven't seen direct evidence.

In contrast, I've seen direct evidence the election has been 'rigged' inasmuch as voter's rights are being manipulated.

[Poopadoop]

I think Trump's popularity is more to do with the concept that Clinton represents the Globalists, while Trump does not. I think that could be a flawed viewpoint, but it might not be. I'm certain that Clinton is establishment, while I'm unsure about Trump. I think that echoes the general mood, though I stand to be corrected.

I think Clinton is in for a shock. I think Trump will get the anti-Globalist vote, and I think that is a much higher proportion of the electorate than it was five years ago.

The important thing is that Trump appears anti-establishment to the voters imo. Whether he actually would turn out to be if he gets in power is another question. My own guess is there would be a lot of talk but not a lot of action; iow, he'll turn out like every other politician.

[OngBonga]

The important thing is that Trump appears anti-establishment to the voters imo. Whether he actually would turn out to be if he gets in power is another question. My own guess is there would be a lot of talk but not a lot of action; iow, he'll turn out like every other politician.

I'm inclined to agree with this.

Still, Trump offers hope, at least for me. Clinton is most certainly status quo.

[wufwugy]

Wuf, you're reaching. I happen to agree with you that the way people put democracy on a pedestal is naive, but you must know that removing voting options that can reliably be expected to lower voter turnout among a particular demographic is playing dirty. It could be that this demographic simply has a distrust of voting by mail. This distrust can be completely baseless-- but exploiting it by making absentee voting the only reasonable option and then claiming that it's not unfair because the remaining option requires less effort is disingenuous.

I agree with this. My response is to the idea the demographic in question is having some shameful affront to their ability to vote.

Whether any of the hypothetical scenario above is true-- I'm not particularly interested in going there. You can claim it's not, as you have, and that's fine, but you've argued that there is nothing wrong with the scenario itself.

I did not intend to give that impression. I don't agree with limiting somebody's vote for the wrong reason, and doing so based merely on being black is a wrong reason.That is, however, I think different than the thing I was trying to address.

[wufwugy]

It's irrelevant whether you call them the 'wrong group' or whether you say they're voting for the 'wrong reasons'. You're trying to justify restricting the vote to people who you think are qualified, i.e., people who agree with your political views. If that's not fascism I don't know what is.

Good news: that's not fascism.

And yes, I believe in restricting the vote based on political views. That's also what you believe and what the founders of the US Constitution believed. The question is not whether that is a good idea, but on which political views and what kind of political views is it right.

[wufwugy]

Well, thanks.

What I think is naive is people thinking they have a better system than one person, one vote. If you can say nothing else about it, it's at least fair.

It is fair when you think in terms of only voting. If you expand out of that, it is not fair. It being not fair is an element for why western society has gone from having near 0 taxes to having very high taxes and an enormous quantity of unproductive people leeching off productive people. Welfarism is a disease, one that exists in part because of one-man-one-vote democracy.

[wufwugy]

I dunno, I didn't really take in the context of your comment, I just took issue with your idea that a "one person one vote" system was optimal. It probably would be if it's what we had.

Under one man one vote, you have has much say over what happens to Bill Gates' money as Bill Gates does.

This is very clearly not fair. Boost is right when he says people have put democracy up on a pedestal. Democracy as a universal wonder has been so deeply indoctrinated into us that the statement "Under one man one vote, you have has much say over what happens to Bill Gates' money as Bill Gates does" feels like it must be wrong even though the rationale is sound.

[wufwugy]

Makes some interesting points. I wouldn't necessarily agree Islamophobia is failing though, at least not in the US. Look who's running for president.

TIL that wanting to stop terrorism wrought by a political ideology is Islamophobia.

[Poopadoop]

Good news: that's not fascism.

Well that settles it then.

And yes, I believe in restricting the vote based on political views. That's also what you believe and what the founders of the US Constitution believed. The question is not whether that is a good idea, but on which political views and what kind of political views is it right.

Are you telling me what I believe? 'Cause I'm pretty sure I have a better grasp on that than you.

[Poopadoop]

Under one man one vote, you have has much say over what happens to Bill Gates' money as Bill Gates does.

Welcome to organised society. In your utopian vision, no-one would pay taxes and we'd all be free to prance around the forest. lalala.

What makes Bill Gates deserve to keep all the money he earns? What has he done for society besides hit some nice variance in life and taken advantage of it?

No-one is saying he should pay 100% taxes and become a pauper, and no-one would vote for that system of government either.

[wufwugy]

Of course you think that.

Fwiw, I don't really support Clinton so much as find her less objectionable than Trump. If there was a viable third option of 'anyone but those two' I would almost certainly support them.


And while I certainly think there's something funny going on when the range of poll results is 14% between the most pro-Clinton and the most pro-Trump, I still haven't seen any actual evidence that any of those polls are 'rigged' in the sense of deliberately overstating one candidate's support.

The only poll I've really looked at in detail is the USC/LAtimes one where they used methods that can most generously be described as 'experimental'. There's other polls that are probably doing something suboptimal as well, but I can't be bothered to investigate every single polls' methods in detail.

If someone can actually point out a valid issue with a poll (or link to someone else who does), I'd be interested. Hasn't happened yet. The only complaint I've come across is 'zomgrigged D+ sample' which the poll in question corrected for and which doesn't constitute any evidence at all of 'zomgrigging'.

That said, any pollster who deliberately tried to rig their result wouldn't be stupid enough to not hide the evidence of rigging. So it could be going on.


As for vote rigging, the only evidence I've seen is that it's being done to improve Trump's chances, not Clintons.

Over a week of IBD getting a +R sample yet weighting it to +D at a greater tick than in 2008. Considering that in 2008, the sample that voted in the general election closely mirrored the sample that voted in the primaries, this weighting by IBD is hilarious since 2016 primaries sample was IIRC R+1. This is an example where the person (loosely) considered the best pollster of 2012 (Ann Selzer) would say IBD is making a big mistake. Selzer would say this because the poll that got her fame in the polling community was one where she did the opposite of what IBD is now doing.

If you're looking for proof of poll foul play, you're unlikely to find it. Although I have come across some pieces of supposedly hard evidence, they're small and can be argued away by anybody who wishes to do so. What we're dealing with instead is our political brains and political logic. As somebody who has followed politics and polling very closely for years, the polls do not come close to passing my smell test. My attempts to explain why tend to fall flat, apparently. I do believe I have given you enough to claim that they don't pass your smell test either. Things like the D+34 sample point to some serious issues with response bias.


I've seen a bunch of people claim they've been polled and hung up on after they said they're voting Trump or that they're Republican. Are they all lying? Maybe.

A statistically weird percentage of polls have had R+ sample data. Does this suggest something is fucky? Yes.

The polls are wildly inconsistent. Does this suggest something's wrong with them? Yep.

The pollster are weighting based on their own opinions, not on data. Evidence of an agenda? You betcha.

[wufwugy]

The one thing about the polls is even though they widely (too widely imo) disagree on who is winning by how much, they do all tend to trend in the same direction at the same time. This suggests that they at least agree on the general shifts in mood of the population towards or away from either candidate.

Yes, this is one of the main uses of internal polling. In a lot of ways, trends are more predictive of the final result than the topline of the final polls.

[wufwugy]

Polls aren't meant to be 100% accurate, they only give an estimate. The truth was 51% Brexit, the polls said 48% (or something like that), so they were in the ballpark. The polls didn't flat out predict Bremain they predicted it would be close, and it was.

IIRC they were off by 6 points from the final polls.

There's an interesting question to ask when considering Brexit regarding how to predict turnout. Gallup and Rasmussen got a ton of shit during Obama years for being too right biased in their polls. The polling culture has internalized this and now avoids right bias. However, the explanation for why Gallup and Rasmussen were wrong is not explained by the way the media (and pollsters) have decided to explain it. What I think is likely is that right-bias is much more accurate when there is enthusiasm among grassroots right-wingers and that it's very inaccurate when there isn't. This helps explain of clobberings of the mainstream polls in years of right-wing enthusiasm.

[wufwugy]

It seems to happen in every POTUS election to a greater or lesser extent. Part of the problem is letting each state run its own voting process, which seems to multiply the chance of corruption by 50x relative to just having one centrally-run system.

Oh man a centrally run system would be so damn easy to rig. Decentralization is so important here.

[OngBonga]

Under one man one vote, you have has much say over what happens to Bill Gates' money as Bill Gates does.

Why are we having a vote to determine what happens to Bill Gates' money? On this basis, I also get to vote on what you have for breakfast. This is an entirely irrelevant point.

The concept of "one man one vote" only needs to apply when it comes to elections.

[wufwugy]

I read somewhere (can't find the link, but if I do I'll post it) that the reason for Trump's popularity has to do with the widespread cultural notion in the US of American Exceptionalism, which is the idea that their country is somehow special and 'should' be on top of the world and remain there forever. The alternate view, that they're destined to go up and down like every other country, shouldn't apply to them (in their minds). There's a conflict between this idea and the evidence suggesting that the country is in decline internationally. Its foreign policy adventures since WWII have been unrewarding. The economies in places like China are rising fast and the US seems stagnant in comparison.

Put the idea that America has to stay on top forever with the evidence that it's slipping down in the world and you get a huge amount of cognitive dissonance. As a result people look for scapegoats, and external threats like terrorists and immigration, and internal threats (the government) all become targets. So they believe these things need to be cleaned up in order to make America great again. Along comes Trump and promises to do just that, and it strikes a chord.

This article makes a comparison between present-day America and places like 1920s and 30s Germany, where the people largely felt their country didn't have its rightful place in the world and the scapegoats were Versailles (treaty at end of WW1) and the jews.

Obviously comparing present-day America to pre-Nazi Germany is a bit of a stretch, and things are more complicated than the article suggests, but it was an interesting explanation for Trump's popularity.

It is an interesting explanation indeed, but also exemplifies what I think is the biggest drawback in literary analysis: you can make any case you want as long as you can show patterns or similarities with a handful of elements.

As somebody who was once outside of Trump Town and now inside it, I think this misses the mark big time. Obama and the Democrats and the left are bad for business of ordinary citizens. It really is that simple. They raise taxes, intrude with wasteful regulations, make places less safe, and all sorts of other nasty stuff. Many millions of voters have consistently voted against these things all their lives. Trump is better at getting the word out than other candidates have been.

Most Americans don't really care about the rest of the world. The idea that a subset of Americans are angry over being marginalized by "progress" has been bandied about for years. It's a popular argument wielded by the elites and wannabe elites who believe in the very things that screw things up for everybody else.

[wufwugy]

The important thing is that Trump appears anti-establishment to the voters imo. Whether he actually would turn out to be if he gets in power is another question. My own guess is there would be a lot of talk but not a lot of action; iow, he'll turn out like every other politician.

Then we'll kick his ass out too.

[wufwugy]

Are you telling me what I believe? 'Cause I'm pretty sure I have a better grasp on that than you.

If you believe in any restriction on voting, any restriction whatsoever, then you too believe in molding voting to your political views. And even if you don't believe in any restriction, it's still molding voting to your political views.

Welcome to organised society. In your utopian vision, no-one would pay taxes and we'd all be free to prance around the forest. lalala.

What makes Bill Gates deserve to keep all the money he earns? What has he done for society besides hit some nice variance in life and taken advantage of it?

No-one is saying he should pay 100% taxes and become a pauper, and no-one would vote for that system of government either.

Like I said, the idea just feels so wrong that it induces all sorts of red herrings and cognitive dissonances.

[wufwugy]

Why are we having a vote to determine what happens to Bill Gates' money? On this basis, I also get to vote on what you have for breakfast. This is an entirely irrelevant point.

The concept of "one man one vote" only needs to apply when it comes to elections.

That's what we do in elections. We decide what an arbitrarily designated group (it can even be an individual) gets to do with his money or time or behavior. If enough people voted for enough politicians to rewrite the US Constitution, saying that Bill Gates has to eat mud every Thursday at 4:00, guess what would start happening each Thursday at 4:00...

I set the example up in micro terms to make it easier to understand, but the principle remains no matter how macro we get. It is the same when millions of willfully unemployed people vote to tax rich people more.

[Poopadoop]

This is an example where the person (loosely) considered the best pollster of 2012 (Ann Selzer) would say IBD is making a big mistake. Selzer would say this because the poll that got her fame in the polling community was one where she did the opposite of what IBD is now doing.

The last Bloomberg poll (which was overseen by Selzer) on Oct. 19 gave Clinton the biggest lead (9 points) of any poll done around that time. Maybe she forgot how to be the best pollster.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar.../national-poll

[wufwugy]

Does Trump improving in the polls relate to him doing worse or better in reality?

Why would it be worse?

[OngBonga]

Fortunately, no serious political party that I'm aware of wants to force Bill Gates to eat mud.

[Poopadoop]

If you believe in any restriction on voting, any restriction whatsoever, then you too believe in molding voting to your political views. And even if you don't believe in any restriction, it's still molding voting to your political views.

I don't agree with restricting voting to people who are likely to share my views. That's the difference.

[wufwugy]

The last Bloomberg poll (which was overseen by Selzer) on Oct. 19 gave Clinton the biggest lead (9 points) of any poll done around that time. Maybe she forgot how to be the best pollster.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar.../national-poll

Iowa Republican Caucus.

I didn't bring her up to say that she was the best or infallible. She did not perform spectacularly outside of the Iowa Caucus. But what got her the best result in an election that many others got very wrong is by using a specific tactic that would be very relevant now yet pollsters are not using.

[Poopadoop]

Fortunately, no serious political party that I'm aware of wants to force Bill Gates to eat mud.

You obviously missed Clinton's last speech.

[wufwugy]

I don't agree with restricting voting to people who are likely to share my views. That's the difference.

Sure you do. My political view, and the political view of 50 million of my friends, is to kill you. If you don't wanna restrict us from the vote, well you die.

[OngBonga]

...guess what would start happening each Thursday at 4:00...

Bill Gates would refuse to eat mud?

[Poopadoop]

Iowa Republican Caucus.

I didn't bring her up to say that she was the best or infallible. She did not perform spectacularly outside of the Iowa Caucus. But what got her the best result in an election that many others got very wrong is by using a specific tactic that would be very relevant now yet pollsters are not using.

You don't think she used that technique in the Bloomberg poll?

[OngBonga]

You obviously missed Clinton's last speech.

Tell me the daft bint actually wants this to be written into the constitution.

[Poopadoop]

Sure you do. My political view, and the political view of 50 million of my friends, is to kill you. If you don't wanna restrict us from the vote, well you die.

Let's stick to the real world for once shall we?

[wufwugy]

You don't think she used that technique in the Bloomberg poll?

She probably did, and something I covered earlier can help explain why it was not a telling choice in that situation. The Iowa Republican Caucus was a particular time when the race was so sporadic and hard to pin down that it turned out the best polling strategy was to (her words) "listen to what the voters were saying" instead of using standard assumptions. In the general, that was unlikely the case. However, in this cycle we have evidence to believe Selzer's strategy would work better than the orthodox ones.

[wufwugy]

Bill Gates would refuse to eat mud?

Sure. Then get sent to prison. Either way, you and me and millions of voters did to him exactly what voting groups do to other groups today.

[Poopadoop]

She probably did, and something I covered earlier can help explain why it was not a telling choice in that situation. The Iowa Republican Caucus was a particular time when the race was so sporadic and hard to pin down that it turned out the best polling strategy was to (her words) "listen to what the voters were saying" instead of using standard assumptions. In the general, that was unlikely the case. However, in this cycle we have evidence to believe Selzer's strategy would work better than the orthodox ones.

So if you give her credit for being a competent pollster (which I think you do), how is it the Bloomberg poll she oversaw gave Clinton a bigger lead than the ones you're claiming are fucked up, like the IBD poll?

[OngBonga]

Sure. Then get sent to prison. Either way, you and me and millions of voters did to him exactly what voting groups do to other groups today.

Well if you think this is what democracy is, forcing people to do stupid things by means of mandate, then it's no wonder you see more flaws than I do. I don't see democracy as a perfect system, but it's better than alternatives. Even anarchy would default to some form of democracy, where decision makers are elected.

[wufwugy]

So if you give her credit for being a competent pollster (which I think you do), how is it the Bloomberg poll she oversaw gave Clinton a bigger lead than the ones you're claiming are fucked up, like the IBD poll?

It could be all sorts of reasons. It's also irrelevant. I merely pointed out one example where her Iowa Caucus logic would apply. IBD continues to get samples that are telling it turnout is not going to look like the weights they're using suggest. They should take that into account, but they are not taking that into account.

BTW I'm not sure if I've said the polls are rigged. I think it is mostly momentary incompetence derived in part from a few different agendas (not being outliers from the pack since doing that and being wrong would destroy their business, and preferring a Clinton presidency).

[Poopadoop]

Sure. Then get sent to prison. Either way, you and me and millions of voters did to him exactly what voting groups do to other groups today.

Send people to prison for not eating mud?

You're right, democracy is insane.

[wufwugy]

Well if you think this is what democracy is, forcing people to do stupid things by means of mandate, then it's no wonder you see more flaws than I do. I don't see democracy as a perfect system, but it's better than alternatives. Even anarchy would default to some form of democracy, where decision makers are elected.

It certainly is better than alternatives.

I believe in democracy too, at least as long as we have government. But I make the points I make because democracy isn't synonymous with "one man one vote." Eligibility should be regulated in some very important ways.

[Poopadoop]

It could be all sorts of reasons. It's also irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant. You're making arguments about how the IBD poll is biased, and saying they're making a mistake Bloomberg wouldn't. So by that logic, the most recent poll with her name on it shouldn't be making that mistake, and therefore should be on the Trump side of IBD results, but it's way over on the Clinton side.

Doesn't add up.

[Poopadoop]

Eligibility should be regulated in some very important ways.

Like what?

[wufwugy]

Of course it's relevant. You're making arguments about how the IBD poll is biased, and saying they're making a mistake Bloomberg wouldn't. So by that logic, the most recent poll with her name on it shouldn't be making that mistake, and therefore should be on the Trump side of IBD results, but it's way over on the Clinton side.

Doesn't add up.

She may not be getting the kind of samples IBD is getting.

If she's getting big D+ samples, she has good reason to think the turnout will be D+. But IBD isn't getting those samples. Nobody knows why, maybe IBD's sample more accurately reflects the population or maybe it less accurately does so. Regardless, the fact that IBD is getting those samples consistently combined with other facts like how well general turnout reflects primary turnout suggests that IBD is missing something by not incorporating this.

[wufwugy]

Like what?

In theory, like people can't vote more than once.

In what's relevant to how our world could be reasonably changed from the position it is currently in, I don't know the vast majority of things, but some would include mandatory ID and no violent felons (which is already common). The main one I argue for is along the lines of eligibility is dependent upon having paid net taxes in the previous year. There are flaws to that one, but I suspect they can be worked around.

[wufwugy]

Does Trump improving in the polls relate to him doing worse or better in reality?

Oh I get the joke now. It's because while Clinton has been up we (I) have been saying she's down.

I missed the joke because I don't say she's down because she's up, but for the reasons given on why she's supposedly up.


Of course that's all over since Comey wrote that letter about the FBI investigating her. There's no way she can win now. I'm a little saddened since my prediction that Trump was always up and would win the 353 would be tainted by this new colossus bombshell that could be so bad that it results in a type of rarely seen "no show" landslide on election day (per the opinion of an unnamed pollster).

[Poopadoop]

She may not be getting the kind of samples IBD is getting.

If she's getting big D+ samples, she has good reason to think the turnout will be D+. But IBD isn't getting those samples. Nobody knows why, maybe IBD's sample more accurately reflects the population or maybe it less accurately does so. Regardless, the fact that IBD is getting those samples consistently combined with other facts like how well general turnout reflects primary turnout suggests that IBD is missing something by not incorporating this.

Maybe it's all those people who don't answer the polls because they're candidate had a scandal, but will vote anyways. Wasn't that the argument for why those other polls had such big D+ samples?