• 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 |OT8| No, Donald. You don't.

Status
Not open for further replies.

Geg

Member
Sanders supporters booed Sanders himself earlier this week after he asked his supporters in California to support Clinton. The booing delegates said they did not think that Sanders wants them to give up the fight
These people are beyond saving.
 

mo60

Member
There is nothing whatsoever appealing to Utahans about Gary Johnson. He has zero appeal to the people in this state since he just hates taxes and loves weed. For him to be competitive in Utah, he'll have to never be covered ever.

It will still be funny if something like the 1912 election happened in Utah but with three candidates in this election where trump wins that state by only 5 points.I heard that Utah has a pretty favourable demographic for hilary which is college educated white voters if I recall. If she wins enough of those she may be able to win that state barely or come close to winning it.
 
Personally I think the stress is getting to Trump. Never in his life has been under this much 24/7 scrutiny and attention. You can see it on his face as the primary went on and now the GE. Having to constantly meet and deal with people, manage and lead people is proving too much for him.
 
I can say pretty definitively that Trump doesn't have dementia or alzheimers. He's a sociopath, which is completely different.

yeah, i'm going to agree here.

As someone who saw Alzheimer's first hand...and I understand it's different for different people, I'm fairly certain Trump doesn't have that at all. He's always spoke like this, anyway.
 
Looks like Bernie people are gonna cause a stink at Hillary's speech.

Probably no war chants or tpp stuff.

Bunch of children, it's not a protest it's rude, unproductive and does the opposite of they want.

She better be prepared for a quip or to.

But it figures they constantly heckle and interrupt women and minorities.

I think penetta was the only other major one?
They started protesting no more tpp when Obama was speaking.
 
I don't think there will be any heckling of Hillary. They might try, but 99% of the room will be pro-Hillary and will quickly shut them up.

They were fine for Biden, Bloomberg, Kaine and Obama.

They started protesting no more tpp when Obama was speaking.

It was one guy who yelled it and was swiftly taken care of.
 
Why don't they simply move the floor mics away from the Cali delegation? Seems like that would be the easiest fix outside of doing anything forcefully.

Also I find this part amusing:

We have finished all voting stuff in the convention, so there is no reason not to kick them out.

Fuck these Green Democrats. We don't fucking need them to win in an electoral landslide.
 
One of them is the fucking DELEGATE COORDINATOR for Bernie in California. The rest of the delegations are fine. Refuse to seat Bernie's people in California. Like, why is this so difficult!?
 

benjipwns

Banned
Time to back up that bus over the body *beep beep beep*: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/dnc-debbie-wasserman-schultz-226352
Debbie Wasserman Schultz wasn’t supposed to ask Joe Biden to come to her daughter’s bat mitzvah.

Democratic National Committee staff had sent the chair to the vice president armed with four specific requests for getting him involved in raising money for the party.

She decided to scrap them for two of her own.

First, she asked Biden to do a fundraiser for her own reelection to her House seat in Florida in the primary challenge she’s facing next month. He agreed.

The second was to get down to Boca Raton for the bat mitzvah.

Biden’s staff balked. They offered to tape a video message from him instead, hoping that would satisfy her.

Wasserman Schultz eagerly said yes. They played it for everyone who came.

The meeting with Biden was symptomatic of the way the DNC was veering off the rails just as the presidential election was heating up. More than a dozen people inside the party apparatus, speaking in the wake of Wasserman Schultz’s resignation on Sunday, describe an internal culture in which few felt they could challenge an increasingly imperious and politically tone-deaf chair who often put her own interests ahead of party functions.
Wasserman Schultz battled to the end. But the dysfunction within the DNC had been mounting for months, according to interviews with over a dozen people in and around the organization. Wasserman Schultz’s detractors extend from party officials to the White House to the Clinton campaign — even though she was widely viewed as favoring Clinton. And many of them say they worry that the email drama has obscured the full picture of went wrong on Wasserman Schultz’s watch, which they worry won’t be fixed unless there’s a more complete airing.

“This [WikiLeaks release] didn’t peel back all the layers of the onion of incompetence,” said one person inside the DNC. “But it broke the fever.”

Neither the White House nor Clinton’s campaign made the moves to oust her earlier for fear of an untimely blowup. Her support of the Iran deal and the Trans-Pacific Partnership helped keep the West Wing from going too hard at her. But senior aides to Clinton and President Barack Obama had long ago run out of patience with what they saw as her attempts to constantly insert herself and clumsily try to ingratiate herself at Clinton’s Brooklyn headquarters.
Wasserman Schultz refused, without direct explanation at the time, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi’s request to have three members of Congress testify at the first party platform committee meeting in early June, leading Pelosi to clear her schedule that day and show up herself to speak about House Democratic priorities.

When Obama agreed to do a DNC fundraiser in Miami in June — and in the end, went out of his way in his public remarks to talk about why Wasserman Schultz needed to be reelected — she for weeks hassled White House political director David Simas to get 10 of the 60 seats (which went for $10,000 each) at the event for her congressional reelection campaign’s biggest donors. She ended up filling the seats, according to people involved with planning the event, with family and friends.
A decision about how much money to transfer to state parties that was supposed to be made in consultation with DNC officers was made unilaterally by Wasserman Schultz, and without warning, angering top brass.

The other DNC officers, directly aware of many of the problems and told by staff about others, were constantly talking to one another about what was going wrong and how to get around a chair who was adamant that she would stay through the end of her term in January.

“In the last eight weeks, there was a growing sense that it just wasn’t going to work, and it was only a matter of time,” one officer said.

Frustration within the DNC, the White House and the Clinton campaign was exacerbated by Wasserman Schultz’s efforts to raise her own profile by appearing more often on national television.
“The biggest problem with the communications department right now is that we don’t put Debbie out there enough,” Miranda said at his first staff meeting after coming on board in September, according to people in the room.
More and more, the DNC staff, the White House and the Clinton campaign simply wrote her off.

“There was nothing we could do with her, so we just stopped pretending,” another DNC staffer said. “She became so ineffective for the building that we just stopped using her.”

Meanwhile, Wasserman Schultz accentuated an existing divide with Amy Dacey, who as committee CEO was supposed to have control over all operations. She was often left out of the loop of decisions by the chair’s staff, sometimes leading to contradictory plans.

“One hand didn’t know what the other hand was doing,” lamented one state party chair.

After Clinton won the nomination in June, her campaign moved quickly to try to take control of the DNC. But when Brandon Davis, former political director of the Service Employees International Union, was brought in to the DNC by Clinton campaign manager Robby Mook to be the campaign’s eyes and ears in the party office, Wasserman Schultz made comments both in introducing him to the full staff and in private conversations encouraging people to see him as working for her.
She hasn’t seen DNC staffers since she stopped by their meeting of shaken staff Sunday night, within hours of Obama calling her to accept her resignation.

“And all those scumbags who are giving you shit on social media,” she concluded, according to several attendees, “f--- them, they don’t know the first thing. They don’t know you.”
 

Dierce

Member
Does anyone have the chart graphic that shows the truthfulness of Hilary, Kaine, Trump and Pence?
Here is one but Ive seen others
lie3.jpg
 
So I want to mention something else regarding polling (and somewhat another swipe at Silver).

I think there's a good chance the national polling right now is going to be off in terms of predicting the electoral college more than usual.

Here's why:

I think in non-competitive liberal states like Cali and NY you're going to see more protest votes than usual. People can afford to do it and young people will do it, IMO.

But that accidentally skews the national numbers when people in these states are polled. In the final polls, it looks like say Stein/Johnson combine for 10% but in reality they're getting 13% in some states that won't matter and 6-7% in ones that do (right now). I'm sure both numbers will eventually come down.

So if you try to derive a trend from national numbers like that, you could be making a mistake. And this goes back to my N = 1000 not being enough, anymore.
 

thefro

Member
Thomas Roberts just broke out a interview he did with Trump in 2013 where Trump says he has a relationship with Putin. Yesterday, Trump said he's never met him

Here's the article

Thomas Roberts said:
"Do you have a relationship with Vladimir Putin? A conversational relationship or anything that you feel you have sway or influence over his government?" Roberts asked.

The real estate mogul responded in the affirmative. "I do have a relationship and I can tell you that he's very interested in what we're doing here today," Trump said at the time. "He's probably very interested in what ... I am saying today, and I'm sure he's going to be seeing it in some form."

While in Moscow, Roberts knew of efforts being made to connect Trump and Putin. Based on the interview, he was under the impression they shared an open dialogue.

A source connected to the Russian oligarch Aras Agalarov said Putin asked the Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov to call Trump before the live Miss Universe show with the intention of setting up a meeting between the two men.

Peskov conveyed Putin's interest in meeting Trump before the Miss Universe show at Crocus City Hall, a venue owned by Agalarov that seats thousands.

The source said Peskov expressed Putin's admiration for Trump and the Russian leader's interest in setting up a meeting. Trump however, according to an additional source, arrived late in Moscow after attending the 95th birthday party for Billy Graham in North Carolina. Putin's schedule reportedly also changed during that time frame after the King of Holland came to Russia to meet with him.

The Trump and Putin meeting in Moscow never happened.

The source familiar with efforts for the two men to meet said Peskov was willing to reschedule a meeting for Trump and Putin but was unable to put it together.

After the Miss Universe event was over, Putin sent a gift and note to Trump, delivered by Argalov's daughter to the Miss Universe offices in New York City.

Trump also helped Agalarov's budding pop-star son Emin, making a cameo in his music video featuring 2013 Miss Universe contestants. Emin was also the featured performer in that year's Miss Universe telecast.
 

Cybit

FGC Waterboy
What would be disastrous? Getting rid of the electoral college? It'd change how campaigning works, but not the result of elections as other than a few outliers winning the popular vote has won you the presidency. I don't even understand how eliminating the EC could guarantee a "tyranny of the majority." Low population states are largely ignored in presidential campaigns under the current system anyway.

A) You would have policies that basically just target the coasts and major cities. Why worry about the rest of the country if I can just promise to take away tons of money from the rest of the country and just invest it in the cities and still win. You would need to stop the move of the population into cities - and it would only take one or two presidents winning by purely courting the urban vote to lead to an even starker movement away from middle of the country to the cities...which would then lead to existing housing problems / etc going even more crazy

B) Low population states are ignored, but middle population states aren't always ignored. Given current population trends, the president would end up being elected purely by folks who live on the coasts within 20 or so years.

wasn't Wang blowing up Nate Silver throughout the 2012 election cycle too? I definitely remember that.

Yeah. Wang doesn't like Silver for some reason or something; there are times I suspect professional jealousy has a lot to do with it. There's been a weird tension between applied analytics folks (think Aaron Schatz, Nate Silver, etc) versus hardcore statisticians for a little while now.

@Black Mamba - that's punditry you're going into right there. ;)
 

Teggy

Member
There are screenshots out there of texts organizing the bob protests. I'm sure the DNC knows about this and will do something.
 

pigeon

Banned
I'm not going to lie I don't have enough personal knowledge to understand the post, I assume its business/economic theory? The only PM I could think of was prime minister and project manager :-/

Sorry!

One of the bugbears of management theory is metrics. It sounds simple to make people more effective -- just choose a metric that describes what you want, give people more or less compensation based on how well they do at maximizing that metric, and let them figure out for themselves how to improve.

In practice, this turns out to not work because people are too smart. Usually this improves output for like a few months, and then actual productivity degrades while the metric itself stays high. People just figure out really quickly how to maximize the metric while doing as little other work as possible (and that's your fault because by tying compensation to it you told them it was the only thing you care about).

The classic example of this is Microsoft's infinite defects methodology on I think Mac Word 6, where for a while they judged engineers by how quickly they closed out their tasks, but ignored bugs and bugfixing. This led to a famous story where an engineer got the task to find out the height of a line of text and just wrote "return 10;". Sure, it was almost always wrong, but that would be a bug to fix later. No problem with the metrics!

Chairman Yellen disapproves

I'm not sure the rules hold true for macro!

Also I'm reading that bounded rationality might be a thing for macro and everybody needs to start over anyway.

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-28/answering-the-hardest-question-in-economics
 

Y2Kev

TLG Fan Caretaker Est. 2009
Although it's the National Review here's an interesting analysis of PA:

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438269/donald-trump-pennsylvania-path-white-house

Conclusion: Clinton most likely to win, if Trump wins it it's by 1-2 points.
Very scary. I mean it's certainly possible the state can go red, particularly in the future. Hillary has a huge ground advantage and they say as much in the article, but still...she has to lock it down. Just have Biden freaking move there.
 
Yeah. Wang doesn't like Silver for some reason or something; there are times I suspect professional jealousy has a lot to do with it. There's been a weird tension between applied analytics folks (think Aaron Schatz, Nate Silver, etc) versus hardcore statisticians for a little while now.

I think Wang doesn't like Silver because Silver is not a statistician and often gets things wrong and writes articles with things wrong in it.

@Black Mamba - that's punditry you're going into right there. ;)

Not at all. I'm mostly asking a question. I'm asking if, given the way our country is divided along certain lines geographically, whether any national poll can be accurate. I'm then asking if this election, being unique where both candidates are really disliked which could lead to more protest votes, could cause even bigger problems when polling nationally.


Normally, a population like ours getting a poll of 1000 people should be reliable. But we, ourselves, are not randomly distributed. And I don't know if any statistician or pollster has actually considered this question and how it relates to national polling. Think about it. There's like what, 8 major regions in the US for polling (West, southwest, midwest, northeast, south, southeast, central, north), numerous important racial/ethinic demographics, religious ones, urban vs suburban vs rural, age, etc etc etc. It seems increasingly hard as these factions don't all align to get a proper representation.

I don't consider this punditry. I'm literally asking and wondering if the current model works anymore.
 

Boke1879

Member
I'll say this. The whips have done a good job keeping things in line the past couple of days. Now I'm sure the sight of Hillary will trigger something in these people.

That said I hope the whips do their job. I'm sure the room will be very pro Hillary to drown out any dissenters.

These people can protest outside that's fine. But I'm sure EVERYONE is tired of them making stink. Especially about stuff they don't know about.
 
Sorry!

One of the bugbears of management theory is metrics. It sounds simple to make people more effective -- just choose a metric that describes what you want, give people more or less compensation based on how well they do at maximizing that metric, and let them figure out for themselves how to improve.

In practice, this turns out to not work because people are too smart. Usually this improves output for like a few months, and then actual productivity degrades while the metric itself stays high. People just figure out really quickly how to maximize the metric while doing as little other work as possible (and that's your fault because by tying compensation to it you told them it was the only thing you care about).

The classic example of this is Microsoft's infinite defects methodology on I think Mac Word 6, where for a while they judged engineers by how quickly they closed out their tasks, but ignored bugs and bugfixing. This led to a famous story where an engineer got the task to find out the height of a line of text and just wrote "return 10;". Sure, it was almost always wrong, but that would be a bug to fix later. No problem with the metrics!



I'm not sure the rules hold true for macro!

Also I'm reading that bounded rationality might be a thing for macro and everybody needs to start over anyway.

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-28/answering-the-hardest-question-in-economics
Yasssss, behavioral gods taking over. I had a finance teacher with clear Marxist sympathies, but he taught really great behavioral econ, so I've been convinced it's the future ever since.

Gonna be a shit show to try and model on a macro level until we have better computation or models, tho.

Edit: also, metric targeting in macro, such as NGDP targeting or inflation targeting tend to work better due to the Supreme faith in the institution that sets them, the federal reserve,to do everything they can to achieve those targets.
 
Can't believe I missed this:

PHILADELPHIA - Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is advising intelligence officials that if they end up giving GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump classified briefings during the campaign, they should just fake it and make sure not to divulge anything important.

“How would the CIA and the other intelligence agencies brief this guy? How could they do that? I would suggest to the intelligence agencies, if you’re forced to brief this guy, don’t tell him anything, just fake it, because this man is dangerous,” Reid said in an interview with The Huffington Post Wednesday afternoon. “Fake it, pretend you’re doing a briefing, but you can’t give the guy any information.”

“This guy, he’s part of a foreign power,” Reid continued. “We knew he liked Putin before this, but this is quite ridiculous.”

LMAO, Reid. He's right, too. Trump wouldn't even recognize a made up country.


Honestly, I wonder if Hillary in the debates is going to catch him off guard. "Donald, don't tell me you're also for reinforcing the 3rd amendment."

"Of course i am. the 3rd Amendment is wonderful and I will make sure every American understands."
 

Boke1879

Member
I can't believe so many people are just shrugging shoulders saying the Russia stuff was just sarcasm, its cool.

wtf

Let him keep saying that shit. My hope is the moderate republicans are watching and taking it very seriously. The simple fact that the GOP has to release statements after he makes these crazy comments is a testament to that.
 

Retro

Member
LMAO, Reid. He's right, too. Trump wouldn't even recognize a made up country.

I can't wait for a Trump event where he mentions the ongoing skirmish between Guilder and Florin and keeping "funny talking, shenanigan-prone" immigrants from Mypos out of the US.
 

Jeels

Member
Honestly, I wonder if Hillary in the debates is going to catch him off guard. "Donald, don't tell me you're also for reinforcing the 3rd amendment."

"Of course i am. the 3rd Amendment is wonderful and I will make sure every American understands."

Nah, he'll just get a poll bump because real america has no time for "gotcha" questions.
 

Bowdz

Member
Can't believe I missed this:



LMAO, Reid. He's right, too. Trump wouldn't even recognize a made up country.


Honestly, I wonder if Hillary in the debates is going to catch him off guard. "Donald, don't tell me you're also for reinforcing the 3rd amendment."

"Of course i am. the 3rd Amendment is wonderful and I will make sure every American understands."

I was thinking about this the other day. Some reporter should just ask Trump a question about a completely made up scenario and see what his response is.

"Mr. Trump, what are your thoughts on the the ongoing Helium-3 trade dispute between the Neptunians and the Jovians?"

See if he actually say "I haven't heard anything about that, no comment" or "Well, firstly, it's a very serious situation and I'll have the best people look into it, believe me".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom