Support NeoGAF

[B-Dubs]

That's not how anything works.



What's up with the scare quotes? It's absolutely a historical model.

It's a model that's predicted all of 8 elections, that's an abysmal sample. If it had predicted 80 that would be one thing, but we haven't even had that many elections yet. Literally every election we've ever had has broken at least one precedent in terms of what we view as electable. His model is based on a series of assumptions, none of which have been disproven as of yet. But that's the thing, we haven't had enough elections to be able to say if these keys are really keys or if it just so happens that they haven't been broken yet.

 

[Corto]

That's not how anything works.



What's up with the scare quotes? It's absolutely a historical model.

Whatever the model he uses there's always uncertainty, randomness at stake. We are talking about an election not a mathematical event. As such, his being right on every election since 1984 just gives an illusion of pattern. He will fail in his prediction at some point, and the more he gets them right the closer he will be to finally fail at it.

 

[KHarvey16]

Not following politics, and not participating are two different things.

I follow indeed, I choose not to participate.

By participating I give them more power, by not participating I add nothing.

Essentially, I don't add to the machine.

People overestimate the power of one vote, of one person, the cruel reality is that we have very little power at all.

You already participate. What aren't you understanding? You live here, you contribute monetarily to everything that's happening and by not voting all you do is throw away an opportunity to influence how your money is spent. Go out and spend 10 freakin minutes to vote.

And how does voting give them more power than not voting? That is bizarre logic.

 

[Cipherr]

I know a lot of you have a "feeling" that Trump will win, but the facts say that he barely has a chance.

Going to enjoy watching these people crash back into reality at full speed as Trump gets annihilated.

People still out here trying to carry that corpse of an argument that Trump is teflon. As if his horrible polling since the convention wasn't enough to dispel that. Can't wait to see the fallout after tomorrow.

 

[Jacob]

People overestimate the power of one vote, of one person, the cruel reality is that we have very little power at all.

Do people really? I think that by the time they reach voting age, most people will have heard the arguments about the worthlessness of individual votes plenty of times. And yes, national elections are not decided by small enough margins that a single person staying home will be the decisive factor. But that's not the point of voting. People don't go to the polls so that they can feel as if they hold the fate of the country in their hands, they go to be one of millions of people contributing to the outcome.

It's a model that's predicted all of 8 elections, that's an abysmal sample. If it had predicted 80 that would be one thing, but we haven't even had that many elections yet. Literally every election we've ever had has broken at least one precedent in terms of what we view as electable. His model is based on a series of assumptions, none of which have been disproven as of yet. But that's the thing, we haven't had enough elections to be able to say if these keys are really keys or if it just so happens that they haven't been broken yet.

Lichtman developed the model through research of Presidential elections going back to the 1860s, looking for common elements in the political landscape that correlated with an incumbent party winning (or not). That's still not a relatively low number and there is certainly room for factors that the model does not take into consideration to impact the outcome, but it has a somewhat better track record than some people are suggesting.

 

[RoyaleDuke]

You already participate. What aren't you understanding? You live here, you contribute monetarily to everything that's happening and by not voting all you do is throw away an opportunity to influence how your money is spent. Go out and spend 10 freakin minutes to vote.

And how does voting give them more power than not voting? That is bizarre logic.

Some participation is impossible to avoid.

I've already said that I've tried the methods you employ, they don't work, nothing changes. The system is broken.

Why? Because politics and government in this country are owned by people who have more money and political reach than I can ever hope to have. Spending 10 minutes to try to do something, that essentially does nothing, is pointless. 10 minutes spent doing something incredibly fruitless, considering how divided our country is politically.

Voting to a large degree is pointless, by voting and playing by their rules you only add to the machine, you give them more ammunition for their guns to kill your life, your rights, your neighbors life, the lives and rights of people you have never even met.

It is kind of hard to throw away opportunities when they actually don't exist.

 

[Jacob]

Why? Because politics and government in this country are owned by people who have more money and political reach than I can ever hope to have.

If this was true the Koch brothers wouldn't have such an abysmal track record at picking candidates and Jeb Bush or Scott Walker would've been the GOP nominee. Wealthy donors are only one factor out of many in elections.

 

[KHarvey16]

Some participation is impossible to avoid.

I've already said that I've tried the methods you employ, they don't work, nothing changes. The system is broken.

Why? Because politics and government in this country are owned by people who have more money and political reach than I can ever hope to have. Spending 10 minutes to try to do something, that essentially does nothing, is pointless. 10 minutes spent doing something incredibly fruitless, considering how divided our country is politically.

Voting to a large degree is pointless, by voting and playing by their rules you only add to the machine, you give them more ammunition for their guns to kill your life, your rights, your neighbors life, the lives and rights of people you have never even met.

It is kind of hard to throw away opportunities when they actually don't exist.

This is all wishy washy vague nonsense.

Here's the deal: you give them money. You can make your voice heard and tell them how you'd like them to spend it. Or you can not, and implicitly approve of them to kill and subjugate and oppress small babies and cute animals the world over. And it will be doubly your fault for not standing up and spending 10 damn minutes to write down on a piece of paper that you don't think it's a good idea. You've now spent roughly three times as long as it would take to vote explaining why you will never vote.

 

[jelly]

Unless there is many millions of shy Trump voters, how on earth is he going to win. I just don't see it. There is enough sane people and people desperate for change can probably see clearly enough that Trump isn't the one to help them so the nothing to lose vote won't do anything. It's crash and burn from Trump.

 

[B-Dubs]

Lichtman developed the model through research of Presidential elections going back to the 1860s, looking for common elements in the political landscape that correlated with an incumbent party winning (or not). That's still not a relatively low number and there is certainly room for factors that the model does not take into consideration to impact the outcome, but it has a somewhat better track record than some people are suggesting.

That's still not a big sample size. Like I pointed out: literally every election we've ever had has broken one precedent or another. So his model will stop working eventually, based on how it works it's inevitable.

 

[Jacob]

That's still not a big sample size. Like I pointed out: literally every election we've ever had has broken one precedent or another. So his model will stop working eventually, based on how it works it's inevitable.

RE: the bolded; I literally said that in the post you quoted.

You are completely correct that no model is perfect and I don't think anyone would suggest that Lichtman's is guaranteed to be 100% accurate all the time, but that doesn't mean the model is garbage. Not saying you called the model garbage but that seems to be what some people have taken away from this thread given the tone. That said, I've already mentioned my specific reservations about Lichtman's ideas back on the first page.

 

[RoyaleDuke]

This is all wishy washy vague nonsense.

Here's the deal: you give them money. You can make your voice heard and tell them how you'd like them to spend it. Or you can not, and implicitly approve of them to kill and subjugate and oppress small babies and cute animals the world over. And it will be doubly your fault for not standing up and spending 10 damn minutes to write down on a piece of paper that you don't think it's a good idea. You've now spent roughly three times as long as it would take to vote explaining why you will never vote.

I think you missed the point, it doesn't matter what I dictate them to do.

The likelihood is that it will have very little to no effect. That is what I want you to acknowledge, what you continue to ignore.

My point is why do something that has largely no point? That unless hundreds of people or more vote the exact same way as me, nothing will change.

The system we have is flawed and owned by people that aren't the masses. They aren't the people that slave away at fruitless jobs to make other people richer, they aren't the people like me who are faced with homelessness because of years of poverty. They weren't denied grants for education at every turn.

They can make their problems mostly disappear, while making mine and the plight of my fellow mans even worse.

It isn't wishy, washy vague nonsense.

It is philosophical political musings that bend towards the fact that I am largely anti-establishment. That is the problem we face now, the establishment of the aristocracy and white supremacy and nearly all societal issues being endemic consequences of those two things.

If this was true the Koch brothers wouldn't have such an abysmal track record at picking candidates and Jeb Bush or Scott Walker would've been the GOP nominee. Wealthy donors are only one factor out of many in elections.

You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.

A flawed system can still work on occasion, and they aren't the only wealthy people or special interests group manipulating the system.

 

[KHarvey16]

I think you missed the point, it doesn't matter what I dictate them to do.

The likelihood is that it will have very little to no effect. That is what I want you to acknowledge, what you continue to ignore.

My point is why do something that has largely no point? That unless hundreds of people or more vote the exact same way as me, nothing will change.

The system we have is flawed and owned by people that aren't the masses. They aren't the people that slave away at fruitless jobs to make other people richer, they aren't the people like me who are faced with homelessness because of years of poverty. They weren't denied grants for education at every turn.

They can make their problems mostly disappear, while making mine and the plight of my fellow mans even worse.

It isn't wishy, washy vague nonsense.

It is philosophical political musings that bend towards the fact that I am largely anti-establishment. That is the problem we face now, the establishment of the aristocracy and white supremacy and nearly all societal issues being endemic consequences of those two things.

Ok, so continue to fund it and stay home so others can do it for you, or if they don't, to make certain nothing is ever done about it. I'm sure all those you wish weren't oppressed and subjugated can appreciate you not wanting to waste a few minutes every couple years.

 

[RoyaleDuke]

Ok, so continue to fund it and stay home so others can do it for you, or if they don't, to make certain nothing is ever done about it. I'm sure all those you wish weren't oppressed and subjugated can appreciate you not wanting to waste a few minutes every couple years.

I think you are completely obtusely missing the points I am trying to make, it is not like I have never voted.

I've voted. I have. I don't anymore because it is all lies meant to placate the masses into thinking they have control when they don't.

I refuse to play a rigged game in the hopes that things "might" change, that my one "vote" will help at all.

 

[DeaconKnowledge]

I feel like there have been a lot of these "X Publication says [Republican Candidate] will win, hasn't been wrong in Y amount of years" threads the past few years. They've all been wrong so far.

 

[KHarvey16]

I think you are completely obtusely missing the points I am trying to make, it is not like I have never voted.

I've voted. I have. I don't anymore because it is all lies meant to placate the masses into thinking they have control when they don't.

I refuse to play a rigged game in the hopes that things "might" change, that my one "vote" will help at all.

So you pay to create the game, but won't play it. All you do is ensure you won't influence the score.

I'm sorry the one or two times you voted before didn't immediately change the world in radical fashion. If this is how you define change, you don't understand change.

 

[Cocaloch]

It's a model that's predicted all of 8 elections, that's an abysmal sample. If it had predicted 80 that would be one thing, but we haven't even had that many elections yet. Literally every election we've ever had has broken at least one precedent in terms of what we view as electable. His model is based on a series of assumptions, none of which have been disproven as of yet. But that's the thing, we haven't had enough elections to be able to say if these keys are really keys or if it just so happens that they haven't been broken yet.

This doesn't mean it isn't a model. It is indeed a historical model.

Whatever the model he uses there's always uncertainty, randomness at stake. We are talking about an election not a mathematical event. As such, his being right on every election since 1984 just gives an illusion of pattern. He will fail in his prediction at some point, and the more he gets them right the closer he will be to finally fail at it.

I don't think you have a very strong grasp on statistics if you think prior independent instances of this model predicting an outcome affect the current chance of it being correct. Unless you think the model itself has some actual effect on the election then this is essentially the gambler's fallacy. The fact that it was right in individual instances before doesn't alter the chance that it is right now.

 

[RoyaleDuke]

So you pay to create the game, but won't play it. All you do is ensure you won't influence the score.

I'm sorry the one or two times you voted before didn't immediately change the world in radical fashion. If this is how you define change, you don't understand change.

I don't expect radical change, but when it is just one person fighting to make that change against a tidal wave of entrenched political adversaries, policies, and a myriad of complexities due to the nature of political and government systems, it is hard to even expect a tiny bit of change.

I've also voted more than once or twice, I find it insulting that you seem to have this air of perception of me that I haven't done much.

That I merely came to these conclusions by sitting at a computer and reading books.

My views are the culmination of a lot of personal experience, books, and yes, sitting at that computer, reading and learning.

I find it interesting that you like so many others like you, just gloss over what I am saying and focus on one aspect(IE: you seem to perceive me as someone that hasn't voted much...sorry to disappoint you), and ignore any rational discussion or specific points of what I am saying, and instead go back to their main argument, ignoring what I have said on the issue.

Spoiler

The game was already paid for and created before I existed.

 

[mo60]

Unless there is many millions of shy Trump voters, how on earth is he going to win. I just don't see it. There is enough sane people and people desperate for change can probably see clearly enough that Trump isn't the one to help them so the nothing to lose vote won't do anything. It's crash and burn from Trump.

Yeah. It's more likely that with trump's really terrible ground game nationally that hilary outperforms her polling by a decent margin while trump doesn't. If he's unlucky he may do a point or two worse than his polling on November 8th.

Doesn't Trump need to win like 70% of the white vote to win this election?

Yep. There are not enough non college educated white voters in the US to help trump get anywere near 70% of the white vote especially with the number of white college educated voters he is guaranteed to lose. I think he will break 55% of the white vote in the end, but he probably won't beat romney's share of the white vote.

 

[KHarvey16]

I don't expect radical change, but when it is just one person fighting to make that change against a tidal wave of entrenched political adversaries, policies, and a myriad of complexities due to the nature of political and government systems, it is hard to even expect a tiny bit of change.

I've also voted more than once or twice, I find it insulting that you seem to have this air of perception of me that I haven't done much.

That I merely came to these conclusions by sitting at a computer and reading books.

My views are the culmination of a lot of personal experience, books, and yes, sitting at that computer, reading and learning.

I find it interesting that you like so many others like you, just gloss over what I am saying and focus on one aspect(IE: you seem to perceive me as someone that hasn't voted much...sorry to disappoint you), and ignore any rational discussion.

My position is perfectly rational, yours is absolutely not. No participation in the voting process means no ability to directly influence the outcome of an election. Again, you are giving these people the tools to do what they want, and you are taking no responsibility to tell them how you would like them to do it. And voting is just that, a responsibility.

You aren't voting, but you ARE participating in the "system". And right now you're only participating on the enabling side, despite having the opportunity to participate on the "providing direction" side. Your votes do have an influence, it's just your method of measuring that influence is flawed.

If everyone who didn't like what was happening right now stayed home, what would the outcome be? Rationally, I mean.

 

[Corto]

This doesn't mean it isn't a model. It is indeed a historical model.




I don't think you have a very strong grasp on statistics if you think prior independent instances of this model predicting an outcome affect the current chance of it being correct. Unless you think the model itself has some actual effect on the election then this is essentially the gambler's fallacy. The fact that it was right in individual instances before doesn't alter the chance that it is right now.

I was thinking of the hot-hand fallacy and that a sequence of right predictions of this model wouldn't make it infallible. But you're right I don't have a strong grasp on statistics.

 

[Cocaloch]

No participation in the voting process means no ability to directly influence the outcome of an election.

Voting essentially means no ability to directly influence the outcome of an election. It's pretty hard to get around the fact that few individuals have much power to influence elections.

Again, you are giving these people the tools to do what they want, and you are taking no responsibility to tell them how you would like them to do it.

Those people already have the tools to do what they want.

And voting is just that, a responsibility.

Well that's like your opinion man.

You aren't voting, but you ARE participating in the "system". And right now you're only participating on the enabling side, despite having the opportunity to participate on the "providing direction" side.

Everyone is always participating in the system, that doesn't really mean they are enabling it because that assumes they have the agency to change it. Which the overwhelming majority of people don't have.

Your votes do have an influence, it's just your method of measuring that influence is flawed.

They have an extremely margin influence.

If everyone who didn't like what was happening right now stayed home, what would the outcome be? Rationally, I mean.

I've never understood this argument because it's so silly. An individual's choice to stay at home doesn't affect anyone else's choice to do the same.

My position is perfectly rational, yours is absolutely not.

I'm not trying to call you irrational or anything, but claiming things like this is patently ridiculous. Try to understand where other people are coming from. That poster didn't call you irrational he said you were ignoring his argument.

I was thinking of the hot-hand fallacy and that a sequence of right predictions of this model wouldn't make it infallible. But you're right I don't have a strong grasp on statistics.

Then part of your problem is you think this is about random chance. After all we are talking about a model that isn't random, previous instances of the model being correct are evidence of the model's ability to correctly predict things. It serves as the model's empirical justification.

 

[RoyaleDuke]

My position is perfectly rational, yours is absolutely not. No participation in the voting process means no ability to directly influence the outcome of an election. Again, you are giving these people the tools to do what they want, and you are taking no responsibility to tell them how you would like them to do it. And voting is just that, a responsibility.

You aren't voting, but you ARE participating in the "system". And right now you're only participating on the enabling side, despite having the opportunity to participate on the "providing direction" side. Your votes do have an influence, it's just your method of measuring that influence is flawed.

If everyone who didn't like what was happening right now stayed home, what would the outcome be? Rationally, I mean.

Ideally, the system would work the way you described it. It doesn't.

You strike me as someone that deals in idealism, absolutes, and rational thought despite the fact that, you refuse to acknowledge the fact that we don't live in a perfectly rational world. If we lived in a perfectly rational world people like Trump, Hitler, Che, probably wouldn't exist. The Government would actually serve and support the lives and wills of the people.

Oppression, probably wouldn't exist. Neither would corruption.

I ask why participate in a process that is largely a sham, An operation of smoke and mirrors meant to titillate and hypnotize the public?

No form of government will ever be free of oppression completely, the will of the people will never be completely realized or mirrored.

I only haven't voted for the last two election cycles, and even then I voted on other issues like Gay marriage, Transgender rights, Medical Marijuana, things like that.

If you had taken my vote away on those smaller issues, I can tell you that they would have passed without me. Why? Because those issues were something a large group of people came together on. And even then, they nearly didn't make it because of a divided congress, and even now at state level we still have problems enforcing these laws.

Honestly, the only way anything is going to change now is if we rise up and take the government by force, or deliver a mass show of force non violently.

We need to put aside things, and come together.

People are fat and unhappy, but yet they mostly do nothing about it. They seem fit to play into the system thinking they can change it.

They can't. We are powerless to effect true change, because we are not on top of the world like the politicians, government officials, and the rich.

We do not have anywhere near their power or reach, we like to imagine our system of democracy as something that works but it doesn't. It isn't fair.

We have one recourse, but it is the one we will never take. We cannot settle some of our differences for the greater good, human nature(IE: Greed) will always work to subvert the constant efforts and intents of the good or the righteous.

By not playing the game, I am in the right.

By continuing to vote in a system of tyranny you continue to add to the plight of the common man. By supporting and playing by their rules, you make things worse.

If I could get away with not paying taxes, I would, and I would fund that money into the hands that actually need it. Fuck the government, fuck the rich, fuck broken systems.

 

[Aaronology]

</snip>

This is quite a manifesto.

 

[thecouncil]

I feel like I could be "mostly right" about 9 coin flips and that's without being given tons of outside information.

 

[MiketheBSG]

How can you win an election without the electorate?

Minorities. Women. Young people. College educated.

The only people he has going for him are high-school educated working class white men, and I don't think that they will overwhelm the rest of the aforementioned groups.

 

[sprsk]

Oh boy.

 

[CrimsonSquall]

I remember there being a school that gotten every presidential candidate right and they said Bernie would win this year

Ah yes, good ol' Western Illinois

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Unless there is many millions of shy Trump voters, how on earth is he going to win. I just don't see it. There is enough sane people and people desperate for change can probably see clearly enough that Trump isn't the one to help them so the nothing to lose vote won't do anything. It's crash and burn from Trump.

I'd say more so if there's not enough people voting for Hillary out of pure disinterest or they've fallen into the "trust issue/she-like-every-politician" category.

 

[Shake Appeal]

Essentially, I don't add to the machine.

People overestimate the power of one vote, of one person, the cruel reality is that we have very little power at all.

There aren't enough eyerolls in the world.

Politics sucks. It's gross and ugly. The candidates are bad. The system is creaky and corrupt. We all agree, but let's do you a favor and say you're super-smart for seeing through it all.

Meanwhile, just fucking vote. It costs you nothing, and it may even do some good!

 

[sprsk]

There aren't enough eyerolls in the world.

Politics sucks. It's gross and ugly. The candidates are bad. The system is creaky and corrupt. We all agree, but let's do you a favor and say you're super-smart for seeing through it all.

Meanwhile, just fucking vote. It costs you nothing, and it may even do some good!

But then how will the oppressors know he is boycotting the system????

Not casting a vote is the same as writing a sarcastic neogaf post then deleting it before posting. No one knows or cares but you.

 

[Illucio]

I see this as the most likely scenario as well.
It doesn't help that so many people who oppose Trump are also mixed on Hillary. While Trump supporters already have their eyes set on voting Trump.

Then we have Johnson who's whole goal is to take over the Republican party because they are in a very weak state. I personally find him more tolerable then the other two options we have.

 

[RoyaleDuke]

There aren't enough eyerolls in the world.

Politics sucks. It's gross and ugly. The candidates are bad. The system is creaky and corrupt. We all agree, but let's do you a favor and say you're super-smart for seeing through it all.

Meanwhile, just fucking vote. It costs you nothing, and it may even do some good!

Except your marginally powered vote does mostly nothing...

Why is everyone ignoring this fact. There are several other posters besides me who have pointed out this fact.

When you could spend 10 minutes organizing with other likeminded people to actually try and effect true change, instead of spending 10 minutes playing right into their hands.

You point and laugh, and roll your eyes, and call my musings a manifesto...without adding anything besides the same tired points.

 

[mo60]

I see this as the most likely scenario as well.
It doesn't help that so many people who oppose Trump are also mixed on Hillary. While Trump supporters already have their eyes set on voting Trump.

Then we have Johnson who's whole goal is to take over the Republican party because they are in a very weak state. I personally find him more tolerable then the other two options we have.

I expect a lot of the people undecided about hilary to unite behind her in the end besides maybe younger voters.

 

[Heckler456]

Except your marginally powered vote does mostly nothing...

Why is everyone ignoring this fact. There are several other posters besides me who have pointed out this fact.

When you could spend 10 minutes organizing with other likeminded people to actually try and effect true change, instead of spending 10 minutes playing right into their hands.

You point and laugh, and roll your eyes, and call my musings a manifesto...without adding anything besides the same tired points.

Bro, just go vote, what are you doing. You can go vote AND do you organizing. Hell, go organize in the line while waiting to cast your vote or something. I mean, sheez.

 

[Robot Pants]

Haven't almost all of them been super easy to predict?
Aside from maybe 2000

 

[RoyaleDuke]

Bro, just go vote, what are you doing. You can go vote AND do you organizing. Hell, go organize in the line while waiting to cast your vote or something. I mean, sheez.

What is the point of converting five people? Ten?

Nothing we need hundreds, thousands to effect change.

I convince five people, that may or may not just be agreeing with me to placate.

Those five people will not make a difference, those ten people will not make a difference.

 

[Heckler456]

What is the point of converting five people? Ten?

Nothing we need hundreds, thousands to effect change.

I convince five people, that may or may not just be agreeing with me to placate.

Those five people will not make a difference, those ten people will not make a difference.

What is the point of doing anything if there's a possibility it might fail? Might as well give up on life if that's how you're gonna start thinking.

If you don't care enough to "start organizing", then do the bare minimum and don't let your vote count for the people who mean bad for a large portion of this country.

 

[RoyaleDuke]

What is the point of doing anything if there's a possibility it might fail? Might as well give up on life if that's how you're gonna start thinking.

If you don't care enough to "start organizing", then do the bare minimum and don't let your vote count for the people who mean bad for a large portion of this country.

Funnily enough I don't think your analogy works at all. I've worked very hard in my life to try to be successful, I've worked and dedicated myself to many a cause. I'm not one to give up easily.

That said, applying such a simplistic view of complex problems is disingenuous. If everything could be fixed by playing the system's games then why are we here? Why do we have so many problems? Why do people not care unless it directly inconveniences them?

More importantly, why are people so blind?

My vote will not stop or overthrow a trump presidency.

My vote doesn't matter. My singular vote will not help the minorities of this country. It will not help the poor, it will not help the disenfranchised.

It will help exactly no one, unless there are thousands of me.

There isn't.

Action and people actually giving a fucking damn will change things for this country.

Voting and standing by a broken system will not.

 

[sflufan]

Ah, idealism! I honestly thought most people had grown out of that nonsense by now!

 

[BSsBrolly]

Funnily enough I don't think your analogy works at all. I've worked very hard in my life to try to be successful, I've worked and dedicated myself to many a cause. I'm not one to give up easily.

That said, applying such a simplistic view of complex problems is disingenuous. If everything could be fixed by playing the system's games then why are we here? Why do we have so many problems? Why do people not care unless it directly inconveniences them?

More importantly, why are people so blind?

My vote will not stop or overthrow a trump presidency.

My vote doesn't matter. My singular vote will not help the minorities of this country. It will not help the poor, it will not help the disenfranchised.

It will help exactly no one, unless there are thousands of me.

There isn't.

Action and people actually giving a fucking damn will change things for this country.

Voting and standing by a broken system will not.

This is the kind of thinking that gave us George W. Bush and the type of thinking that will lead to President Trump.

 

[Heckler456]

Funnily enough I don't think your analogy works at all. I've worked very hard in my life to try to be successful, I've worked and dedicated myself to many a cause. I'm not one to give up easily.

That said, applying such a simplistic view of complex problems is disingenuous. If everything could be fixed by playing the system's games then why are we here? Why do we have so many problems? Why do people not care unless it directly inconveniences them?

More importantly, why are people so blind?

My vote will not stop or overthrow a trump presidency.

My vote doesn't matter. My singular vote will not help the minorities of this country. It will not help the poor, it will not help the disenfranchised.

It will help exactly no one, unless there are thousands of me.

There isn't.

Action and people actually giving a fucking damn will change things for this country.

Voting and standing by a broken system will not.

Why are you giving me this overwrought litany of arguments against just getting off your ass and into the voting line? By your logic, NOT voting means just as little as voting, seeing as how it's still just "one vote" in either case. Whether you give it to them or not, according to you, there is no difference in terms of impact. The only difference is that by not voting, you're casting away your right to choose, while by voting, you're exercising it. Not to mention that your entire argument is predicated on a false dilemma, seeing as how there's nothing stopping you from contributing to society AND making sure the wrong person isn't in office by next year.

I feel as if you're just trying to make a point just to make a point. There is nothing worthwhile that comes from you specifically not voting.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

Funnily enough I don't think your analogy works at all. I've worked very hard in my life to try to be successful, I've worked and dedicated myself to many a cause. I'm not one to give up easily.

That said, applying such a simplistic view of complex problems is disingenuous. If everything could be fixed by playing the system's games then why are we here? Why do we have so many problems? Why do people not care unless it directly inconveniences them?

More importantly, why are people so blind?

My vote will not stop or overthrow a trump presidency.

My vote doesn't matter. My singular vote will not help the minorities of this country. It will not help the poor, it will not help the disenfranchised.

It will help exactly no one, unless there are thousands of me.

There isn't.

Action and people actually giving a fucking damn will change things for this country.

Voting and standing by a broken system will not.

That's exactly the problem. There's never just one person who thinks their vote doesn't matter.

 

[Aarglefarg]

Funnily enough I don't think your analogy works at all. I've worked very hard in my life to try to be successful, I've worked and dedicated myself to many a cause. I'm not one to give up easily.

That said, applying such a simplistic view of complex problems is disingenuous. If everything could be fixed by playing the system's games then why are we here? Why do we have so many problems? Why do people not care unless it directly inconveniences them?

More importantly, why are people so blind?

My vote will not stop or overthrow a trump presidency.

My vote doesn't matter. My singular vote will not help the minorities of this country. It will not help the poor, it will not help the disenfranchised.

It will help exactly no one, unless there are thousands of me.

There isn't.

Action and people actually giving a fucking damn will change things for this country.

Voting and standing by a broken system will not.

There are many more than thousands of you, not voting.

 

[Raiden]

Eh i have been spot on for more than a decade as well. Do i get some cred too?

 

[Auto_aim1]

You don't get to say "Trump is not a normal Republican candidate, he might lose" and then brag about your model. I saw the interview of this professor, he didn't fully commit to his prediction.

 

[mjp2417]

Haven't almost all of them been super easy to predict?
Aside from maybe 2000

Depends on when the prediction is made. The only two full wire-to-wire shellackings were '84 and '96 (even McCain had polling leads at certain points early in the '08 cycle).

 

[SoRuffShoNuff]

Funnily enough I don't think your analogy works at all. I've worked very hard in my life to try to be successful, I've worked and dedicated myself to many a cause. I'm not one to give up easily.

That said, applying such a simplistic view of complex problems is disingenuous. If everything could be fixed by playing the system's games then why are we here? Why do we have so many problems? Why do people not care unless it directly inconveniences them?

More importantly, why are people so blind?

My vote will not stop or overthrow a trump presidency.

My vote doesn't matter. My singular vote will not help the minorities of this country. It will not help the poor, it will not help the disenfranchised.

It will help exactly no one, unless there are thousands of me.

There isn't.

Action and people actually giving a fucking damn will change things for this country.

Voting and standing by a broken system will not.

Literally thousands of people like you are the reason George W Bush won.

 

[RoyaleDuke]

There are many more than thousands of you, not voting.

Yes, but many of those people probably don't think like I do or have other reasons for not voting.

If I could bandy people together under a platform of equality I would, but in this world it wouldn't get enough support. People don't care, the politicians don't care.

People like to vocalize their outrage, but will they ever act on it? Will they actually do what is necessary?

No. More often times they will not.

I alone cannot change this nation, I cannot band people together when at the very core this nation is divided.

No one can agree on anything, and many are fine to let things be the way they are while complaining about it, and standing by a broken system.

Why are you giving me this overwrought litany of arguments against just getting off your ass and into the voting line? By your logic, NOT voting means just as little as voting, seeing as how it's still just "one vote" in either case. Whether you give it to them or not, according to you, there is no difference in terms of impact. The only difference is that by not voting, you're casting away your right to choose, while by voting, you're exercising it. Not to mention that your entire argument is predicated on a false dilemma, seeing as how there's nothing stopping you from contributing to society AND making sure the wrong person isn't in office by next year.

I feel as if you're just trying to make a point just to make a point. There is nothing worthwhile that comes from you specifically not voting.

Overwrought litany of arguments?

What? Am I supposed to just echo chamber your opinions and arguments?

I am simply making a case, a statement for why I believe the way I do, why I think the way I do. Why I say the things that I do, nearly every single one of the people responding to me have chosen to ignore my arguments for the sake of "LOL BRO GO VOTE LMAO MANIFESTO CHILD ROFL WHAT AN IDIOT" as a basis in response.

I mean what am I supposed to give you to make you see things the way I do? I mean really, people just keep ignoring what I have to say and singling out the fact that I don't vote instead of the complex reasons why. I find that telling, very telling, because people don't like the truth.

I can't convince everyone to vote for the right candidate or the right reasons. I know because I've tried in the past, and it goes about as well as it is going in this thread.

Some people are entrenched, they cannot be changed or they do not want to face change or the truth.

I want it clear, I would vote if it actually mattered and made a difference, if I could have ten thousand versions of myself to vote and sway things, and right the wrongs of society.

I dream of a future where things are fairer, where we are united against those that seek to divide us and keep us on the bottom.

Ahh, dreams are nice aren't they?

 

[sprsk]

he said, without a hint of irony.