Which debate did I get?
-
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 |OT3| You know what they say about big Michigans - big Florida
- Thread starter Spoiled Milk
- Start date
- Status
Which debate did I get?
On further inspection, I'm not sure if that's the point he's making?
RustyNails
Member
I honestly thought it was the dumbest throwaway line I've ever heard, but turns out Reagan used it for his campaign too!
Never underestimate the how low the intelligence of an average american voter is. Now it's the most well known 2016 campaign slogan.
I had to look up the word they used in A New Hope before I made that post.
RustyNails
Member
Lol he's turning into the unskewed guy from 2012. Just like Mittens believed he was gonna win till the last minute, the crashlanding to earth will be glorious.
vicissitudes
Banned
Last Tuesday was good for Trump but he severely underperformed the Saturday before. Cruz winning Maine was frankly, a huge upset. Cruz also got the same number of delegates as Trump in Louisiana, where Trump had huge double-digit leads.
Also there were some smaller contests that people haven't been paying attention to like DC, Puerto Rico, and Wyoming. Trump got 0 delegates in those contests. Combined there were almost as many delegates as Ohio.
But you're right that larger states coming up, like NY and Pennsylvania and NJ should strongly favor Trump. Cruz doesn't really have a chance there.
No, I think Trump would build a wall. I think he would deport illegals (which Obama is already doing). I think he may put a temporary ban on certain countries/regions from coming into the US. But the reality is, the US already admits immigrants from different countries at different rates. There are countries where US currently admits fewer immigrants. This would simply be a more restrictive version of something already in place.
But Trump is not going to "ban all brown people" from coming to the US. That's just fear-mongering. There has been no policy where people are barred entry based on their physical appearance. That's not real policy, it's rhetoric.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Speaking of Campaign Finance, this is how I would like to see it done.
1.) A candidate must, on his or her own get X number of signatures. This is viability threshold number 1, and it's not particularly high but it's high enough to stop many from running unless they are very serious. Can't hire anyone to get the signatures, has to be volunteers.
2.) Basic funding in a very modest amount is provided, that is used to help get the word out for the candidate and get a larger set of endorsements and signatures. You could work out some type of system where endorsements from elected officials count as X number of signatures. This is viability threshold 2. No public or personal funding yet above the stipend.
3.) Now, a reasonable amount of funding is provided for a primary election campaign. A cap of 100 dollars per person is allowed, and that funding is matched by the government. They are also given a fixed amount of funding.
4.) X number of debates are scheduled, the party determines when but not the number of them.
5.) The winners of the primaries get a similar funding setup, but increase the donation cap by another 100 dollars to 200 total for each candidate over both elections.
The challenge of this setup is finding the right viability thresholds in the early stages of the campaigns. Doing it some way via per capita of the electorate would probably be best. Would probably need another viability threshold for national elections.
1.) A candidate must, on his or her own get X number of signatures. This is viability threshold number 1, and it's not particularly high but it's high enough to stop many from running unless they are very serious. Can't hire anyone to get the signatures, has to be volunteers.
2.) Basic funding in a very modest amount is provided, that is used to help get the word out for the candidate and get a larger set of endorsements and signatures. You could work out some type of system where endorsements from elected officials count as X number of signatures. This is viability threshold 2. No public or personal funding yet above the stipend.
3.) Now, a reasonable amount of funding is provided for a primary election campaign. A cap of 100 dollars per person is allowed, and that funding is matched by the government. They are also given a fixed amount of funding.
4.) X number of debates are scheduled, the party determines when but not the number of them.
5.) The winners of the primaries get a similar funding setup, but increase the donation cap by another 100 dollars to 200 total for each candidate over both elections.
The challenge of this setup is finding the right viability thresholds in the early stages of the campaigns. Doing it some way via per capita of the electorate would probably be best. Would probably need another viability threshold for national elections.
brainchild
Banned
Phonebanking is not incorporated into his model. He just notes a correlation between phonebanking and surging interest.
Trump doesn't need to get an outright majority of delegates to utterly burn the GOP to the ground. As Matt Dowd put it this morning, if Trump gets to 1100 delegates, the party is going to have a nearly impossibly time taking the nomination away from him with any hope of being legitimate in the fall. A brokered convention where Trump leads with delegates going in would be the best possible scenario because any outcome would be chaos.
If Trump manages to offer someone like Rubio or Kasich the VP slot to help him get the nom, we get Trump for the GE with an absolute shit show of media coverage for the week of the convention while also ensuring 50% of Republicans are pissed.
If Trump loses a brokered convention to Cruz, Kasich, or Romney, he will go nuclear and take a plurality of disenfranchised GOP voters away from the party in the general. Even if he's missed the ballot deadlines, he can suck up all of the oxygen in the general from the sidelines. The media coverage going into and coming out of the convention would be an unmitigated disaster for the party.
Regardless of how this turns out, the convention is almost guaranteed to blow up in the GOP's face. Once again, as Matt Dowd said this morning, the GOP has already fractured and no matter how this election turns out, it is a completely different, fundamentally weaker party in the national scene.
If Trump manages to offer someone like Rubio or Kasich the VP slot to help him get the nom, we get Trump for the GE with an absolute shit show of media coverage for the week of the convention while also ensuring 50% of Republicans are pissed.
If Trump loses a brokered convention to Cruz, Kasich, or Romney, he will go nuclear and take a plurality of disenfranchised GOP voters away from the party in the general. Even if he's missed the ballot deadlines, he can suck up all of the oxygen in the general from the sidelines. The media coverage going into and coming out of the convention would be an unmitigated disaster for the party.
Regardless of how this turns out, the convention is almost guaranteed to blow up in the GOP's face. Once again, as Matt Dowd said this morning, the GOP has already fractured and no matter how this election turns out, it is a completely different, fundamentally weaker party in the national scene.
I've decided that the next time Trump spikes I'm going to sell my shares on PredictIt. I can't root for him anymore; I'll be rooting for a contested convention that steals it from him and causes him to go third party. It'll be great for Democrats and better for the country than the alternative. He should not be nominated.
brainchild
Banned
This is completely irrelevant when his predictions have had more bias for Hillary than Bernie.
You're getting emotional! You should sell and stay out.
It's supposed to mean whatever you want. Part of his appeal is he doesn't get specific on policy so people see what they want to in him.
vicissitudes
Banned
This is a really interesting scenario and looking increasingly likely. What would happen if no one hits 1237 going into the convention, but Trump is still way ahead of the other candidates? If the numbers looked something like Trump - 1100, Cruz - 700, Rubio - 300, Kasich - 200, can they really take it from Trump? And what would happen to the party and its base if they do?
I don't want to see the GOP fall apart so I hope Trump simply wins the delegates outright. Otherwise it's hard to say. They may cut a deal with Trump and nominate him anyway but get some concessions. If they nominate someone else, I don't think Trump will go 3rd party (he knows he won't win), but will the voters revolt? Interesting to think about.
oh, so he would but a ban on certain countries/regions from immigrating to the united states - i guess instead of banning the religion we'll just ban the regions where all the people of that religion live from immigrating
brilliant! have you considered running for the republican presidency? its not too late to get in at the brokered convention, and looking at polling data we can see that it was pledging to ban muslim immigration that cemented trump as the frontrunner among republicans
now how would he be able implement this ban - after all, you know how crafty "those people" can be, they could just fake the paperwork or come in through another country... do you think trump supporters would be okay with that? what would they do about that?
you're being willfully obtuse - though i won't extrapolate anything about your reasons for why you are doing this
It's the violence that crosses the line for me. I don't want to see street clashes leading up to the general election, bloody protesters carried out on stretchers, riots breaking out at political rallies. As much as I'd like to think it wouldn't happen in New York, I think it could, and if it comes to that then I'm going to be out there fighting the fascists.
Just tells me he's a bad partisan!
(Without Vermont, it's actually the other way around...the size of some of the errors is indicative.)
ugaboga232
Member
I like this idea, and coupled with a change from FPTP, I think we could reap a lot of rewards.
If selling your shares of Trump and buying shares of other things affects in any way this exact situation; you should do it.
I'm waiting for him to win Florida. If he has a good Tuesday the shares will spike and I'll make a very generous profit; not as much as if I waited for him to win the nomination but I don't want that outcome anymore. It would feel very much like blood money.
brainchild
Banned
Lol, OK.
The margin of some of those errors shows that his model isn't consistently reliable at this point.
But if you want to push the narrative that his desire for Bernie to win is somehow distilled into a variable that he then magically crunches into his statistical model, be my guest.
its likely your shares would be in limbo through Cleveland if Kasich pulls through in OH. Sale and get out is what I would do unless he takes both FL and OH.
I actually have no idea what his model does. The inputs are not public.
I am not pushing a narrative. I don't really care about his desire for Bernie to win, though it has made him say some truly inexplicable things. But that's ok. I'm not insecure about it.
shinra-bansho
Member
Trump isn't to the left on healthcare. The only point in his seven that differs from the Republican orthodoxy is the reimportation of pharmaceuticals.
He isn't to the "left" on trade; because that assumes that protectionism is necessarily left.
He isn't to the "left" on foreign policy; unless one considers that left means isolationist. The latter doesn't mean Trump is a proponent of peace, and his policies would lead to reduced global stability and security.
He isn't to the "left" on trade; because that assumes that protectionism is necessarily left.
He isn't to the "left" on foreign policy; unless one considers that left means isolationist. The latter doesn't mean Trump is a proponent of peace, and his policies would lead to reduced global stability and security.
I do believe there is a chance he can carry Ohio.
Basileus777
Member
Why did you post this identical post twice an hour apart?
Yes, exactly.
While being against trade has been a more typically leftist position in the past in the United States , this is no longer true at least as of this election cycle, but in practice I would say for a good two decades or so.
As someone mentioned above, we should be thinking about how to socialize the gains from trade and minimize the temporary negative impacts. The narrative from anti-trade candidates this cycle have been uniformly awful, full stop.
Suikoguy
I whinny my fervor lowly, for his length is not as great as those of the Hylian war stallions
Oh yeah, that would definitely need to be changed to Rank Order voting. Otherwise it just would not work. Going to be tough to get them to change it though, as Rank Order voting will eventually diminish the influence of both current major parties.
Change we can believe in
Trump is still the safer bet in Ohio. He's actually won states.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I think NRA's Wayne LaPierre does the best job at explaining why conservatives think america isn't so great right now. His job is to sell guns and he really knows how to tap into conservative fears in order to get that job done.
https://youtu.be/AsBMuZrcdDk?t=186
But yes, the underlying tone is that America is becoming less white/straight/Christian.
brainchild
Banned
He has made his methodology public. It's a combination of social media data, Google trends, demographics, and comparative analysis.
Here is a more detailed look into his preliminary predictions for this Tuesday
Tyler said:
https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersFor...ler_pedigo_political_forecaster_dude_back_at/
Even if he's wrong, it's clear to me that hopes and wishes have nothing to do with how he makes his predictions.
He's not even an isolationist through and through. Just in hindsight. He reversed himself on Libya and Iraq for instance.
Going forward he wants to re-invade Iraq but once that turns to shit I'm sure he'd blame Congress or something.
Okay, so I want the 10 May debate. SO MOTE IT BE
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/01/donald-trump-2016-authoritarian-213533
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ritarians-new-research-says-so-what-are-they/
Even in the link you posted which didn't mention Sanders, look at the issues most important to authoritarians and tell me that's what's drawing supporters to Bernie.
This is extremely opaque. That's my point. He's giving his ingredients, but not how they work together or even in what proportion the ingredients are used. It's like 538 without the weightings and ratings and quite a bit of historical error (not that they don't have error, of course, but it's a lot more transparent on how the inputs are working). It has more in common with Metacritic. It's not auditable.
That he's said some very wonky things because he IS a partisan is revealing to me. Sorry you don't agree.
vicissitudes
Banned
I suspect he'll have something in his healthcare proposal that resembles a public option or expanding Medicaid such that "people don't die in the streets" in time for the General, but he's not going to talk about that now.
As for the other two I admit they are harder to place on a purely left-right spectrum. I won't say his stances are "more left" than Hillary's, I'll just say his positions are "more great," okay?
For example, one of the most notable Trade researchers is..... Paul Krugman.
Intraindustry Specialization and the Gains from Trade, 35 years ago:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1830815?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
The new anti-trade movement is born of ignorance, misguided frustration and political pandering.
"Wrong".
The term you are looking for is "more wrong".
Edit: Damn, Bernie starting simple and strong: "Donald Trump is a pathological liar".
Intraindustry Specialization and the Gains from Trade, 35 years ago:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/1830815?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
The new anti-trade movement is born of ignorance, misguided frustration and political pandering.
"Wrong".
The term you are looking for is "more wrong".
Edit: Damn, Bernie starting simple and strong: "Donald Trump is a pathological liar".
shinra-bansho
Member
Random thoughts on Tuesday. One thing that hasn't been mentioned about the Michigan upset.
There were only two races that day, one of which Sanders basically entirely ignored as a lost cause. Basically he could campaign for votes in a single state.
I think he performs better when he has more time to devote to a state, with favourable demographics, to raise his profile against the pre-existing Clinton familiarity.
Tuesday doesn't have the number of races as proper Super Tuesday; but there are certainly more than the Michigan/Mississippi day.
Also, the position on trade isn't more great, it's more stupid.
On foreign policy, he isn't more great. He's more inconsistent. And devoid of substance and knowledge.
There were only two races that day, one of which Sanders basically entirely ignored as a lost cause. Basically he could campaign for votes in a single state.
I think he performs better when he has more time to devote to a state, with favourable demographics, to raise his profile against the pre-existing Clinton familiarity.
Tuesday doesn't have the number of races as proper Super Tuesday; but there are certainly more than the Michigan/Mississippi day.
I don't really care what you suspect, when his actual platform has been released.
Also, the position on trade isn't more great, it's more stupid.
On foreign policy, he isn't more great. He's more inconsistent. And devoid of substance and knowledge.
brainchild
Banned
Unless you believe when he says, "the numbers tell me...", that he's literally lying and not just making predictions based on the numbers, I don't see how you can conclude that his bias is affecting his predictions.
I have no idea if they are or not! If the model ends up being extremely predictive, that's cool. All I said was that I didn't realize he's a partisan, which you immediately reacted to because you're high on sugar or still reeling from the revelation that NDT is a wacko.
I did comment on some statements I've read of his because they are irrational. But it's not like Nate hasn't said irrational things in the past. Everyone gets hit with a sack of potatoes occasionally.
Again, this is basically just admitting that you don't support Trump, you support a fantasy candidate that is not currently running, but you've decided to pretend that Trump is that fantasy candidate and that once you've been together for a while you'll work off that rough exterior and reveal the dream politician you've always wanted.
Psychoward
Banned
I know that Hillary/Bernie Healthcare thread turned to shit but I was just curious about one thing. I do prefer Bernie but I thought it wasn't far fetched that Hillary's point was that she was asking Bernie if she forgot all the work she did for Healthcare Reform in 93 and 94, and not instead asking what he was doing for Healthcare. Instead of clarifying on that point though her communications manager admits that it was a flub and apologizes. What?
In my mind there are two scenarios here.
Scenario 1: Hillary actually was questioning what Bernie did for Healthcare, and both his physical support of literally being there and congressional support proves her wrong. Campaign staffer admits mistake and that they weren't aware of Bernie's actions.
Scenario 2: Hillary meant that it doesn't make sense for Bernie to attack her record on health care, asks if he was absent when she was trying to push her reform. Campaign staffer admits mistake instead of clarifying what she actually meant.
Both are odd, Scenario 1 hurts Hillary more and Scenario 2 hurts her staff more but even if HilLary meant Scenario 1 why wouldn't her staff just re-address their attack and reformat what she said? Doesn't make sense to me.
In my mind there are two scenarios here.
Scenario 1: Hillary actually was questioning what Bernie did for Healthcare, and both his physical support of literally being there and congressional support proves her wrong. Campaign staffer admits mistake and that they weren't aware of Bernie's actions.
Scenario 2: Hillary meant that it doesn't make sense for Bernie to attack her record on health care, asks if he was absent when she was trying to push her reform. Campaign staffer admits mistake instead of clarifying what she actually meant.
Both are odd, Scenario 1 hurts Hillary more and Scenario 2 hurts her staff more but even if HilLary meant Scenario 1 why wouldn't her staff just re-address their attack and reformat what she said? Doesn't make sense to me.
brainchild
Banned
My mistaken then. I misinterpreted the significance of your original post.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked