• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2016 |OT15| Orange is the New Black

Status
Not open for further replies.

Maxim726X

Member
I'm honestly fucking scared for my health care. If I lose my job I'm fucked, I have diabetes who will ever insure me? Once employers understand this they will make us bend to their will out of sheer fear of never being insured again.

If it's any consolation, I don't think the pre-existing condition of statute will be removed from future bills.
 

Nelo Ice

Banned
Me too

I was so optimistic our country was heading to something great and special

Now I'm convinced Obama was a fluke and this country is a disgusting pit of hate
Yeah. Now I'll never get food nights sleep again. Hell I still haven't slept. This is a nightmare that will never end. I've lost the will to do anything with my life. America voted and I'm never going to amount to anything as a minority. And now people will be legitimized to discriminate against me and other people of color. While the government, police etc turn their backs on us.
 
Me too

I was so optimistic our country was heading to something great and special. That only time needed to move and things would get better

Now I'm convinced Obama was a fluke and this country is a disgusting pit of hate
I don't think he's a fluke necessarily, but he was definitely our one chance and we blew it. Now our kids will think the pyramids were built to store grain and that all Muslims are evil and that chance will be lost.
 
But Sanders did. Sanders was simultaneously talk about civil justice reform and doing considerably well in the Rust Belt, where he notched up some of his bigger wins. Warren probably couldn't - she's too east coast, metropolitan, and educated. She's too different from the sort of people that need to be connected with. Harris has the same problem. I think Biden might have been able to do it; it depends on how he structured his campaign. He has the background to leverage some trust, but I think if he'd made a serious run it would have been Clinton-esque in tone.

The next Democratic President will come from a relatively poor background. They might be a minority or a women, but if they are, they won't make identity politics their front and centre campaign theme. They'll be a political outsider with relatively little experience. They'll almost certainly not come from the coastal states. They won't be Ivy League, they'll have a more humble background. They'll be relatively populist - their campaign will focus on jobs and growth and the rich, and they'll deal with free trade and immigration only minimally.

Those are my bets.

Also, without meaning to at all, I've ended up describing Sanders and to a much lesser extent Biden. I have definitely not described Clinton.

EDIT: I'd be surprised if they identified as socialist or talked about being overtly leftist, though - Sanders was slightly different to what I think will prove the winning formula. They'll use very simple language about fairness and deservedness and people getting their dues and about the "struggling classes who barely make ends meet". They're definitely not going to talk about the bourgeoisie and the proletarian or get overly wonky, because that makes them too academic to be a man/woman of the people.
This was basically John Edwards' campaign message.
 
Black Mamba, without wanting to be mean you've been wrong about effectively everything this cycle, from how well Sanders would do (I can find stuff in your post history saying he'd only win Vermont in the primary), to why 538 totally sucked (best performing of the major models), to how Clinton was going to romp it home. Maybe it might be time to start reconsidering some of your beliefs?

god damn son, i shudder to think of what you'd have written if you wanted to.
 
Assuming that Trump is reigned in by the GOP somehow on extreme matters, and that Congress manages to be at least a sane check on him, if not a good one, we can at least assuming the following:

- Climate change efforts are done. The largest issue facing the world (which received 0 election coverage) is done.
- Voter suppression will begin on large scales again, likely supported by extreme-right judges appointed.
- Wealth disparity will increase.
- Russia will be unopposed in Eastern Europe.
 

VRMN

Member
Considering how many Trump voters supported him because they hated Hillary, I fail to see how Bernie couldn't have done better there with the white vote.
Clinton scaremongering turned to communism scaremongering. Among that crowd, it'd work.

Also the alt-right would easily mobilize against Sanders in the same way.
 
I don't think anyone should be gleeful at the idea of restrictions on the free press...

At the same time, I hope the media realises the part they played in creating this monster.
So Nate Silver was right, there was a significant chance of systematic issues with the polls.

I really wish he'd just have been wrong.
I had something of an ominous feeling when I read his article the other day about how large the uneducated white vote was, and how they don't tend to turnout.
 

Effect

Member
Real talk is adam okay?

Looks like at least a few users asked for their accounts to be deleted.

Ugh. I hate seeing this and I hope he (I know he had a twitter. Can anyone PM it to me if you have it?) and others are okay. I'm not but nothing I can do. :( I took off sick from work today which isn't a lie. I'm just going to try and avoid a lot of things the next few days and weeks and process.
 
Black Mamba, without wanting to be mean you've been wrong about effectively everything this cycle, from how well Sanders would do (I can find stuff in your post history saying he'd only win Vermont in the primary), to why 538 totally sucked (best performing of the major models), to how Clinton was going to romp it home. Maybe it might be time to start reconsidering some of your beliefs?

uh, there is no doubt that I was 100%, unequivocally wrong about this election.

I know 538 gave a higher liklihood to Trump, but they were still very wrong. And it should be noted that 538 only gave like what, a 3% chance to Hillary pop vote win and election loss, which is what happened. And I still think his model is wrong unless I see his model re-ran with an incumbant rather than one that isn't (my guess is it would be about the same as the other models). Regardless, you're kind of arguing they're a bit less wrong. They still have basically 3:1 odds on Hillary winning. Of course, the issue was the polling itself. No model could survive state polling being this wrong.



I am most certainly reconsidering my beliefs. I have to. I said at the beginning I am shocked and am trying to figure out what happened.

I don't believe Bernie would have won. Why? Because my beliefs have already changed. But yes, I will admit more than ever I am less certain of that position because I have to be less certain of every position I've had regarding elections. This loss makes that obvious.

Did I really say Bernie would only win Vermont? I must have said that before Biden got out, I imagine. Fuck man, I don't know. I don't know shit about this shit, anymore.

Before Poli-Gaf I didn't talk much about these things. I talked about actual policy and actual results of policies. Maybe I should go back to that.

I was wrong. Very wrong. And I want to know why.
 
Why should we pray our already weak institutions are weakened further? I don't think wishing a pox on anyone is going to help.

Except for Trump. Pox on trump please.
The press is mentioned in the Constitution as the only non-federal occupation protected from anything. They have a goddamn duty to make sure stuff like this doesn't happen and they failed miserably. Either the broader media grows a pair or it collapses and needs to be rebuilt from scratch. Can I pox them on those grounds? I don't even mean ill will toward any specific persons there. And there are journalists that did fantastic work I hope are rewarded for it and continue, of course.

The old avatar is back! Unfortunately circumstances.
The only thing giving me hope is that no way Trump lasts 4 years without a huge scandal or causing lots of harm. So he will be out of there in 2020...i hope.
His entirely life to date has been scandal after scandal and it didn't stop him from being elected.
 

Doc Holliday

SPOILER: Columbus finds America
Just the thought of people like Steve Bannon and Corey lewendowski roaming the white house makes me sick.


The only thing giving me hope is that no way Trump lasts 4 years without a huge scandal or causing lots of harm. So he will be out of there in 2020...i hope.

BTW how soon do terrorist groups try to bait Trump into a conflict in the Middle East?
 
I know 538 gave a higher liklihood to Trump, but they were still very wrong.


To be fair to 538, they were actually right for the exact reason they stated: their model gave Trump a higher chance due to uncertainty that a large polling error was hidden...and that's what happened. But it was even bigger than they thought (they thought max of 3%, it was 4%).
 
Assuming that Trump is reigned in by the GOP somehow on extreme matters, and that Congress manages to be at least a sane check on him, if not a good one, we can at least assuming the following:

- Climate change efforts are done. The largest issue facing the world (which received 0 election coverage) is done.
- Voter suppression will begin on large scales again, likely supported by extreme-right judges appointed.
- Wealth disparity will increase.
- Russia will be unopposed in Eastern Europe.
Yeah we're screwed for sure. Even if the last three don't happen and we have Kanye in office in 2020 it's over.

How shitty is your media to not cover that, it's insane
It was covered at one of the debates. It was clarified that Trump's official position is no longer that global warming is a Chinese hoax.
 

tuffy

Member
Ugh. I hate seeing this and I hope he and others are okay. I'm not but nothing I can do. :( I took off sick from work today which isn't a lie. I'm just going to try and avoid a lot of things the next few days and weeks and process.
I was considering avoiding work also due in part to a lack of sleep, but decided against it. I figured getting out of the house and solving problems at work would be better for my frame of mind. But I am going to try to avoid the news for awhile.
 
It was covered at one of the debates. It was clarified that Trump's official position is no longer that global warming is a Chinese hoax.
I thought he just (wrongfully) denied that he ever said that, not that he thinks any differently of the situation? At best, that perhaps it may not be a Chinese hoax, but that it's still bullshit.
I hope we at least get that $1 trillion in infrastructure out of this.
Aaaaaaaahahahaha. Maybe if it's conveniently attached to tax cuts.
 
It begins

Jeffrey Goldberg ‏@JeffreyGoldberg 5m5 minutes ago
"Trump's victory is an opportunity for Israel to immediately retract the notion of a Palestinian state" -- Naftali Bennett.

Can't imagine how much Estonia is shitting themselves
 

Doc Holliday

SPOILER: Columbus finds America
I was considering avoiding work also due in part to a lack of sleep, but decided against it. I figured getting out of the house and solving problems at work would be better for my frame of mind. But I am going to try to avoid the news for awhile.

I think I slept for one hour. I live in nyc, so we're sorta shielded from emboldened racists but I feel those in middle America who aren't white.
 
To be fair to 538, they were actually right for the exact reason they stated: their model gave Trump a higher chance due to uncertainty that a large polling error was hidden...and that's what happened. But it was even bigger than they thought (they thought max of 3%, it was 4%).

my problem with that is two things.

1. I didn't feel like there was enough baked in for a polling error the other way. But maybe they increased the error one way to go against the incumbent party (in which case, this might be correct)

2. dos this mean there was a shift in the state of the race when 538 was at 90%+ or was it due to response rates? If it's the latter, the 538 model was just as wrong as every other model, only was lucky regarding the timing of the polling. That is, if the election was held 2 weeks ago, they would have been very fucking wrong like everyone else.

If it's the former, I want to know what changed the race.


But hey, Silver was right to worry about a big polling error. And Hillary not being near 50% enough was the justification for it and I learned a lesson there. As did everyone else.
 

Goodstyle

Member
I feel so bad for the Hillary campaign. They worked so damn hard, they did everything right, and they still lost. It's heart breaking for Mook, for Podesta, for Hillary, and for Huma. They went through so much these last months and still came up short. Life isn't fair at all.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
Nate actually had:

Clinton wins popular vote but loses Electoral College 10.5%

His model definitely accounted for that outcome. Like obviously his model didn't produce it as the most likely outcome, but what model would have given the polling inputs? Nate correctly made the assumption that polling is not always accurate, and accordingly simulated a range of alternative options according to different possible polling errors. That's about as good as you can do. If polling errors were predictable, they'd be correctable, and hence wouldn't exist, so in the long-run they have mean 0 but a reasonably wide standard deviation. That standard deviation introduces uncertainty, hence why despite Clinton finishing on average nearly 4 points ahead in the polls, he still only had her at 70% to win. Now, obviously the model's most likely outcome didn't happen, but it did allow for the outcome we saw. Comparatively, for Wang, the absolute darling of this thread, we can now say his model was definitely wrong, because it didn't allow for this outcome at all.
 

thefro

Member
I mean, we're basically looking at a total lockout of Democrats from national politics for at least 10 years. The Senate is clearly gone, barring a massive backlash election, the House is gerrymandered to hell (and is going to stay that way until at least 2030 now), and apparently all you need for the Presidency is someone willing to be hateful enough to turn out the Trump Base.

People were talking about the permanent Republican majority in 2004. That didn't last.

Lots of stuff can change quick. Republicans have to govern now and it's all on them.

Trump isn't getting 80% of the rural county vote if he is a bad President. Dems will nominate someone with less baggage this time who's a fresh face.
 

Blader

Member
I hope we at least get that $1 trillion in infrastructure out of this.

The only bit of good I can see coming out of the next four years is an infrastructure bill that actually does set about rebuilding roads, tunnels, bridges and creates tons of new jobs. I'm not hopeful that, filtered through a Republican congress, it will in any way be what we need or want. But it's the only thing he's touted on the stump that I think may hold some glimmer of hope.

People were talking about the permanent Republican majority in 2004. That didn't last.

Lots of stuff can change quick. Republicans have to govern now and it's all on them.

Gerrymandering has made the House of Representatives very different from what it was 10 years ago. The kinds of southern blue dog seats that the Dems relied on to win a majority in the '06 wave don't exist anymore.
 

Pixieking

Banned
Erin Ruberry ‏@erinruberry 8h8 hours ago

Catherine Cortez Masto, the daughter of a Mexican immigrant, will become the first Latina senator

And Hassan is behind by about 1900 votes in New Hampshire, with 6% left to count (and closing).
 

Barzul

Member
Scary thought. But I hope he's children are the one advising his transition plans, they are at least kinda reasonable and were raised in the East Coast. Might help with some key appointments.
 
Nate actually had:



His model definitely accounted for that outcome. Like obviously his model didn't produce it as the most likely outcome, but what model would have given the polling inputs? Nate correctly made the assumption that polling is not always accurate, and accordingly simulated a range of alternative options according to different possible polling errors. That's about as good as you can do. If polling errors were predictable, they'd be correctable, and hence wouldn't exist, so in the long-run they have mean 0 but a reasonably wide standard deviation. That standard deviation introduces uncertainty, hence why despite Clinton finishing on average nearly 4 points ahead in the polls, he still only had her at 70% to win. Now, obviously the model's most likely outcome didn't happen, but it did allow for the outcome we saw. Comparatively, for Wang, the absolute darling of this thread, we can now say his model was definitely wrong, because it didn't allow for this outcome at all.

Didn't realize it creeped up that high. Okay, question, relating to my last post.

If the election was held two weeks ago but the results are the same, then that means Nate's model and he himself were as wrong as everyone else. His model was better only because the inaccurate polling was more accurate in the recent term. If you flip it, the results change.

That is, 2 weeks ago Nate would have been arguing about the polling error and before the election would have claimed it was a done deal. So does this actually mean he was more accurate or lucky? I can't tell.

Now, in fairness, maybe it's not all response rates and maybe something changed. I don't know, no one knows.
 
Why should we pray our already weak institutions are weakened further?

Look, I wanted Hillary to be our president so badly. I wanted her to be the first woman president. But we lost. We're set back probably 10 years or so. It really sucks. There are people that will be so negatively impacted by this that I am certain their survival is at stake. I don't feel good about it, and you shouldn't either. I don't think wishing a pox on anyone is going to help.

Except for Trump. Pox on trump please.

Ten years is pretty optimistic. It took us 70 years to get universal health care. The New Deal and great society, voting rights, EPA all took massive congressional majorities. All that stands to be undone. Not to mention their Supreme Court majority.
 
This means these states are not out of reach forever

Along with Trump not doing great in a bunch of blue trending red states paints a more positive outlook for 2020

With the right candidate we can rebuild the blue wall. We just assumed voters wanted someone qualified for the job. When charisma is really what they want

Every dem presidency lost in the modern era was due to an uncharismatic candidate. Every win was with someone dripping with charisma.
 

bplewis24

Neo Member
None of us are, I suppose.

Well, now isn't the best time, but some of us who voted for Bernie in the primary and Hillary in the general were warning of this a while ago. But we were shouted down, and things were rationalized. http://static.currentaffairs.org/20...s-a-trump-nomination-means-a-trump-presidency

Now, this only matters because we now have to learn from this and figure a path forward. But a lot of the arguments that I argued against (in vain) back in late 2015 early 2016 will have to be re-litigated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom