• 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 |OT9| The Wrath of Khan!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Meguro

Banned
It will be all over the major American networks. Usually, there's a Fox News live stream on YouTube, I believe. (If you want to watch video). The New York Times will also live blog it, as will places like 538. I'm sure that night we'll post a link to a live stream in whatever OT thread is made. :)

Yeah I'd like some video since I already follow 538.
Thanks for the info!
I guess I'll check Gaf on election day then.
 

benjipwns

Banned
Utah. If that Mormon guy who just announced can get on the ballot out there, with a Romney endorsement, it could split the state and allow a Clinton win.
Using my sophisticated statistical model: 95% chance he's out of the race in two weeks, 0.15% chance of Romney endorsement. 0% chance of turning the state D.
 

digdug2k

Member
Utah. If that Mormon guy who just announced can get on the ballot out there, with a Romney endorsement, it could split the state and allow a Clinton win.

Indiana would probably flip with the margin's we're seeing, even without a spoiler.
Heh. Has any party ever tried running a fake alternative "candidate" in a state just to try and split the vote their? I wonder if you could build a strategy around that. i.e. propping up Gary Johnson in states that lean heavily Libertarian.
 

Grief.exe

Member
It will be all over the major American networks. Usually, there's a Fox News live stream on YouTube, I believe. (If you want to watch video). The New York Times will also live blog it, as will places like 538. I'm sure that night we'll post a link to a live stream in whatever OT thread is made. :)

I'll probably grab my second monitor out of the basement and hook it up for that night.

Will be watching the Fox News livestream. Will be gloriously awkward.
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Using my sophisticated statistical model: 95% chance he's out of the race in two weeks, 0.15% chance of Romney endorsement. 0% chance of turning the state D.

More than likely you're right, but let me dream a little dream.

Heh. Has any party ever tried running a fake alternative "candidate" in a state just to try and split the vote their? I wonder if you could build a strategy around that. i.e. propping up Gary Johnson in states that lean heavily Libertarian.

Candidates have propped up opponents they wanted to face in opposing primaries, so who the fuck knows what will happen this cycle.
 
Wonder how "greedy" the Clinton campaign/DNC will get and compete in these new battleground states, or play it safe with the conventional ones (PA, OH, FL).
 
Heh. Has any party ever tried running a fake alternative "candidate" in a state just to try and split the vote their? I wonder if you could build a strategy around that. i.e. propping up Gary Johnson in states that lean heavily Libertarian.

Dem PACs have put money behind libertarian candidates in places like Montana to split off votes from Republicans. There are just too many voters for this to be effective at the Presidential level without Koch-level money.
 

Holmes

Member
I have a little question for you, PoliGAF:

Is there any easy way to watch something or follow something live on election night for someone outside the US?

This'll be the first US election night I could follow live and I'd like to "be there", as weird as that sounds.
Well, you can find a livestream of CNN or MSNBC, or even Fox if you want some salty tears. You can also join us in chat on election night too.
 
Alaska, Montana, even Indiana if we're talking about these margins.

Utah. If that Mormon guy who just announced can get on the ballot out there, with a Romney endorsement, it could split the state and allow a Clinton win.

Indiana would probably flip with the margin's we're seeing, even without a spoiler.

Would never even think some of this would be in play. This is such a batshit election to have as the first I'm eligible in...
 

B-Dubs

No Scrubs
Wait, why is everyone reporting that Trump said "Titties" during his economic speech today? Tell me he slipped up and said it, tell me. I need the fuckery.
 
Also from that Monmouth poll:



From their methodology:



Bye!

4M7K2y5.gif
 

benjipwns

Banned
My Fellow Americans,

Our American Nation is the greatest experiment in freedom the world has ever known. It’s given generations of citizens the blessings of liberty ever since the Founding Fathers risked their lives in what seemed like an improbable bid for independence. While the republic they created was one of imperfect freedoms, for 240 years the arc of progress and liberty has moved ever-upward. Even in times of economic crisis and war, our nation has been a singular source of hope for people throughout the world yearning for liberty, dignity and opportunity.

I proudly and quietly served our country for most of my adult life, first as an undercover operations officer with the Central Intelligence Agency and more recently as a senior national security and policy advisor in the House of Representatives. My service has given me unique, firsthand knowledge of the threats our nation faces, the burdens borne by hardworking Americans, and the numerous areas of our government that desperately need reform.

Like millions of Americans, I had hoped this year would bring us better nominees who, despite party differences, could offer compelling visions of a better future. Instead, we have been left with two candidates who are fundamentally unfit for the profound responsibilities they seek.

Hillary Clinton is a corrupt career politician who has recklessly handled classified information in an attempt to avoid accountability and put American lives at risk including those of my former colleagues. She fails the basic tests of judgment and ethics any candidate for President must meet. Moreover, she only offers stale economic ideas like the same old top-down government control that has brought us eight years of historically low growth.

Donald Trump appeals to the worst fears of Americans at a time we need unity, not division. Republicans are deeply divided by a man who is perilously close to gaining the most powerful position in the world, and many rightly see him as a real threat to our Republic. Given his obvious personal instability, putting him in command of our military and nuclear arsenal would be deeply irresponsible. His infatuation with strongmen and demagogues like Vladimir Putin is anathema to America values. We cannot and must not elect him.

Millions of Americans are not being represented by either of these candidates; those of us who care about the strength of the military and intelligence services find little to embrace in either Trump or Clinton.

Americans who believe in limited, Constitutional government that is smaller, smarter, and more accountable view both Clinton and Trump as symbols of corruption and excess that provide no hope of basic competence in the federal government.

Those who embrace the dignity and value of every human life from conception until death; who understand the crushing danger of our unsustainable national debt; who believe deference to our Constitution outweighs partisan political priorities are all looking for something better than the two major party candidates are offering. These foundational and time-tested principles transcend party and politics but sadly have no champion in this election. We must not abandon the fight for these values, for doing so will deprive future generations of Americans the bright future we want to give them.

With the stakes so high for our nation and at this late stage in the process, I can no longer stand on the sidelines. Our country needs leaders who are in it for the right reasons and who actually understand what makes this country the greatest on earth. Leaders who will unite us and guide us to a prosperous, secure future, beyond the dysfunction of a broken political system.

Just as the American Revolution required men and women devoted to liberty and freedom to stand up and be counted, this moment calls a new generation to the same sacred task. With that in mind, I have decided to pursue the cause of American renewal and the Presidency of the United States of America.

With Hope For Our Future,

Evan McMullin

Evan McMullin is an independent candidate for President.
website is expanding quickly: https://www.evanmcmullin.com/issues

he supports a strong america that creates good jobs and has a smartly run government and has no abortion on demand and replacing the failed obamacare
 

Captain Pants

Killed by a goddamned Dredgeling
website is expanding quickly: https://www.evanmcmullin.com/issues

he supports a strong america that creates good jobs and has a smartly run government and has no abortion on demand and replacing the failed obamacare

It always amazes me how much money just gets thrown away during elections. No one backing this guy actually thinks he can win, but they'll throw money at him just to see what happens.
 

embalm

Member
So I just read this article from the Atlantic about America being due for a tax raise.

It's really good and it's really well sourced. The article ends by saying, "History suggests that doing so could help reduce income inequality and wealth concentration at the very top. But the U.S. must really want it to be done."

After reading that, I ask myself how do we get taxes on top earners to be increased? We've had 1% protests, but no progress was made. We have numbers and proof that increased top earning taxes could help close the income gap, but nothing seems to be on the agenda.

How do we get it on the agenda?
 
So I just read this article from the Atlantic about America being due for a tax raise.

It's really good and it's really well sourced. The article ends by saying, "History suggests that doing so could help reduce income inequality and wealth concentration at the very top. But the U.S. must really want it to be done."

After reading that, I ask myself how do we get taxes on top earners to be increased? We've had 1% protests, but no progress was made. We have numbers and proof that increased top earning taxes could help close the income gap, but nothing seems to be on the agenda.

How do we get it on the agenda?

A strongly Democratic Congress.
 

gcubed

Member
So I just read this article from the Atlantic about America being due for a tax raise.

It's really good and it's really well sourced. The article ends by saying, "History suggests that doing so could help reduce income inequality and wealth concentration at the very top. But the U.S. must really want it to be done."

After reading that, I ask myself how do we get taxes on top earners to be increased? We've had 1% protests, but no progress was made. We have numbers and proof that increased top earning taxes could help close the income gap, but nothing seems to be on the agenda.

How do we get it on the agenda?

Obama got a lot of raises (or... letting expirations lapse) on high income earners through both the fiscal cliff deal and the ACA. I don't know how fast our country would move to doing it again. It would need Dem supermajority to do it, and then they would all lose
 
This thread has a problem, and yes, I'm implicating you, with giving MMT responses to questions that have widely accepted answers in neo Keynesian economics.

No debt isn't a problem. This is because of debt to gdp ratio, which historically isn't too high, and globally pales compared to Japan. So if Japan hasn't exploded, with like 200% debt/gdp, why should we, when people trust American debt more than its Japanese counterpart.

Anything anyone says about printing money and using taxes to slow down inflation is spitting unproven fringe economics. They don't think interest rates have any effect on inflation because of straight IS/LM curves. That means they're crazy.

Ohh I'm not a hard MMT'er. I would never argue interest rates don't affect inflation as an example. I just think at that most basic level it helps people conceptually.
 

DrForester

Kills Photobucket
Only downside I see the Trump tanking now is that he really has nowhere to go but up now, and a "comeback" narrative will be adopted.
 
You'd first have to explain what a Brownback was and what his economics were and what a Kansas is.

Democrats are trying to make college free to indoctrinate our kids into their geographical Zionist camps.

Only downside I see the Drumpf tanking now is that he really has nowhere to go but up now, and a "comeback" narrative will be adopted.

Inevitable. Even if his numbers tanked further, they are going to try to project that the media is ignoring his nonexistent gains
 

Holmes

Member
Only downside I see the Trump tanking now is that he really has nowhere to go but up now, and a "comeback" narrative will be adopted.
Maybe. Or there could be a bandwagon effect and the story can become "how low can he go?", especially if more Republicans come public with their endorsements of Clinton (and Johnson).
 

gcubed

Member
Only downside I see the Trump tanking now is that he really has nowhere to go but up now, and a "comeback" narrative will be adopted.

eh, if he's still pulling 30s after the olympics are over he will be abandoned by a lot of people to save their own ass
 
Josh Kraushaar ‏@HotlineJosh
Cross Trump at your own PERIL: Per NBC/WSJ poll: Cruz fav/unfav w Rs before convo speech: 45/27. AFTER speech: 34/46. (via @mmurraypolitics)

Josh Kraushaar ‏@HotlineJosh
Want to know why McCain/Ayotte still clinging to Trump endorsements? Cruz lost 30 (!) points of net favorability by bashing Trump!

Josh Kraushaar ‏@HotlineJosh
Cruz's numbers COLLAPSED with GOPers and independents, too. DEMOCRATS now view Cruz more favorably.

That last tweet made me lol
 
at this point i think we are more likely to see the "how low can he go" narritive, especially when we hit the debates and he embaresses himself on a national stage.

His numbers can bounce back a bit, but i think most of the damage is done, and the debates sure as shit arent going to increase his numbers
 

Foffy

Banned
Sorry, I meant it as an affectionate joke. I agree with you that automation is a major issue and we need to start now in laying the groundwork for a workless economy. (By which I mean much lower average cost of goods and overhead combined with the elimination of almost all labor jobs and an increasing number of service jobs, both of which challenge the norm of needing to find a job and work full-time in order to live. Which is a bad norm anyway.)

I think you might be a little bit ahead of me in terms of how quickly you see this process going, but otherwise we're on the same page.

This is another reason I'm very interested in Hillary's Appalachia plan.



Do you have any data on their effectiveness? I guess the middle of a trackless desert is probably the ideal place to start deploying driverless trucks.

It's all good my man. I know I talk about this a lot, and that is largely because I am deeply concerned about our fellow homies in society. I'm not sure how quickly I see it coming, but some, like Elon Musk, feel we're actually ahead from where people predicted where we'd be. For example, self-learning AI would appear to be 10 years ahead of where most thought it'd be.

I get very worried we think the issue of automation will be an issue for our great-great grandchildren will inherit the issue in the 2100's or something. I see no way any of us hit the age of retirement without this being one of the biggest issues of our time, be it directly for us, or systemically for our collective society. If the White House is saying this will be an issue soon, in some degree will occur as early as during the timeframe of the next president, this is not something futuristic.

As for what you asked about trucks, I don't know, actually. To my knowledge, much of the technology used in the trucks is the same as the one used in driverless cars, so we can safely say it is still safer than people in most cases, but not all. But that itself is the goal: if it's at least equal to a person, it becomes incentivized. The only issue there is stabilization, and that itself is just a game of getting enough data of these things on the road. To be specific on what counts as hitting that, to mention Musk again, he argues it is when the vehicles are 10 times safer than the human person on average, which again is not that high of a number. That's just inevitable to hit as more traveling is done, as three million miles of self-driverless cars are done every day. That's a lot of data to have.
 
This Catherine Cortez Masto's latest. Probably her best yet: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwQKmP1qIlA

This Strickland ad is terrible: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ulK_pUTXJU

This McGinty ad is good because it cuts into a huge weakness of hers (that's she's an entitled elitist): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Js1LOALGXzA

This Kander ad is pretty brutal: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEnOTl9N7r4

If she can cut this down to 30-seconds, this is an okay Patty Judge ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgXXB1RDsmw

I can't get over how bad that Strickland ad is.
 
Seriously ... how long can this polling keep up before Garland is approved in the Senate? Especially since Clinton came out and said she would appoint her own. Do they wait until the very bitter end?
 

Holmes

Member
That reminds me, Montana is super red in presidential elections but has a pretty decent amount of elected Democrats, what's the deal with that?
Cross over votes. They're Republicans for the most part but don't mind electing Democrats downballot to keep the executive in check. Same for Democratic states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania... it's why the governing party usually does badly in midterms. Voters want to keep the executive from having too much power... though now that Republicans have gamed the system with gerrymandering, it's gotten out of control.
 
Cross over votes. They're Republicans for the most part but don't mind electing Democrats downballot to keep the executive in check. Same for Democratic states like Wisconsin, Pennsylvania... it's why the governing party usually does badly in midterms. Voters want to keep the executive from having too much power... though now that Republicans have gamed the system with gerrymandering, it's gotten out of control.

Gerrymandering helped the Democrats dominate the House for 40 years, it's not really anything new.
 
That reminds me, Montana is super red in presidential elections but has a pretty decent amount of elected Democrats, what's the deal with that?

I lived in Montana for a bit. It's a state with an independent streak that isn't dominated by evangelicals.

Judy Martz was the last Republican Governor (2001-2005) and she Brownbacked it. Ran the budget into the ground and left in disgrace. She has a 20% approval rating on her way out.
 

Holmes

Member
Gerrymandering helped the Democrats dominate the House for 40 years, it's not really anything new.
Well, the South was still solid for the Democrats congressionally until the 90's. But you're right - the 1984 election for example should have been a Republican victory congressionally by modern standards, but Democrats won 253 seats.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...us_57a8c341e4b0aae2a5a0a464?0hykdr2b3ko2h85mi

The Green Party Takes Itself Very Seriously, But No One Else Should

HOUSTON ― Three Green Party activists walked into a McDonald’s.

It sounds like the start of a bad joke ― and in a way, it was ― but three Green Party activists actually did walk into a McDonald’s on Saturday; specifically the McDonald’s in the University of Houston’s student center, where the far-left party had convened to nominate physician Jill Stein and human rights activist Ajamu Baraka as its presidential and vice presidential candidates.

“I try not to buy things from Walmart and eat at McDonald’s,” one said, frowning, his politics laid bare by his T-shirt: “WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE USA? Capitalism and Greed | Racism (White Supremacy) | Religion.” However, most of the center’s dining options were closed for the weekend, meaning attendees faced the unappetizing option of going hungry or stomaching a tray full of corporatist, anti-worker, GMO-laden bile washed down with a McFlurry.

So the attendee and a number of his compatriots cast aside their McSkepticism and made do with what was at hand ― the salad wraps appeared to be the move. It was just about the only time this weekend that members of the Green Party reconciled themselves with reality, and if the party’s convention is any indication, the Greens are not only unprepared to wage a national campaign, they can’t even get their act together enough to craft a coherent and resonant message.

The whole article is pretty amazing!
 

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
at this point i think we are more likely to see the "how low can he go" narritive, especially when we hit the debates and he embaresses himself on a national stage.

His numbers can bounce back a bit, but i think most of the damage is done, and the debates sure as shit arent going to increase his numbers
I certainly have a hard time imagining a lot of news outlets engaging in a genuine comeback narrative. Too many have seen what he represents. He's just too scary to entertain.

Cruz's stunt was amusing, but it was hardly good politics for someone wanting to be win a future Republican Presidential primary.
I'll be morbidly curious to see if he recovers, and in the aftermath of a Trump loss, can spin it in his favor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom