Switch Theme:

Politics - USA  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@Asterios, you are welcome. You are correct, people who are not looking for jobs are not considered unemployed, they are considered to have left the workforce.


No seriously, they're still counted as unemployed.

"Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed. "

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Sgt_Scruffy wrote:
 Dreadwinter wrote:
Asterios wrote:
 sebster wrote:
 Ouze wrote:
I mean, it's just pure, unadulterated clownishness.


Yep. I think it's much like Trump, the guy just says whatever is the best answer for that situation, and then when another situation comes up he makes up a new answer for that question. Any discrepancy is commented on by everyone else, but by then he's moving on to all new nonsense so it gets buried.

In another similarity to Trump, this whole thread is now totally dominated by Asterios - either his posts or people pointing out the nonsense in his posts. He is 'sucking the air out of the room' a la Trump. Maybe I'm beginning to see why he wants to vote for the guy.


actually i tried to avoid this thread today, but got dragged into it once again., you know what I quit believe what you want, i'll believe what I want, neither effects me either way, I don't collect SS or will need to, I've got my retirement plan down stat, got my house paid off and survive and don't have a job, so not much more the government can take from me anyway. also don't need a job so don't have to worry about looking for non-existent work and so forth.


Can I ask what your secret is? How does one not work and still have enough money to survive? I have yet to crack this life riddle.....


Don't you know? His bank account, his hands, or anything else are more than large enough.


I have to believe we're being trolled.


not trolled just smart planning on my behalf.

Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in us
Colonel





This Is Where the Fish Lives

Asterios wrote:
actually i tried to avoid this thread today, but got dragged into it once again.,
No one has forced you to comment on this thread.

 d-usa wrote:
"When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Ensis Ferrae wrote:
Lol, that was the claim that I was backing up with my lumped in comment.... I fully recognize (unlike some here) that there are documents and facts out there, ready to be read by those who care to.


Sorry, my bad. I was meaning to add on to your comment by giving you the figure, I didn't think you were supporting Asterios, but can see how it sounded like that.

I recall a meeting that I had a number of months back with one of the political science professors at my school, and the issue of "foreign aid" was a hot button issue, both in the news, and in class. I forget my question, but her response was basically, "look at the countries that we send food, money or "aid" to, and you will see the majority of the time, there is something for us in return."


Definitely. Foreign Aid is part of geo-politics. And in shaping the world in to what best suits the US, it probably delivers a lot more bang for buck than military spending.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Asterios wrote:
problem is, those numbers are what is put in the budget, not what is added later to foreign aid. which has a habit of happening all to often, or are you saying the government can predict natural disasters in foreign countries? before they happen even? or certain Serbian immigrant situations ?


A very small portion of foreign aid is disaster relief. And even if a large event occurred, then budgets contain contingencies, and if an absolutely massive event happened then you'd see a smoothing effect, where funds are given now and drawn from future year allocations.

someone beat you to directing me there, and I thanked them for something you just couldn't do earlier since I was asking for said information before.


You have google. If you're going to go around rejecting basic bits of economic knowledge, maybe try using google search at least once before hand.

It is not the obligation of dakka to provide you with the most basic information on the topic.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/31 05:54:47


“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine






 sebster wrote:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
@Asterios, you are welcome. You are correct, people who are not looking for jobs are not considered unemployed, they are considered to have left the workforce.


No seriously, they're still counted as unemployed.

"Some people think that to get these figures on unemployment, the government uses the number of people collecting unemployment insurance (UI) benefits under state or federal government programs. But some people are still jobless when their benefits run out, and many more are not eligible at all or delay or never apply for benefits. So, quite clearly, UI information cannot be used as a source for complete information on the number of unemployed. "


I'm not sure about that, Seb. I think they are counted similar to retirees and people in school if they quit looking for over four weeks.

From the same page, spoiler end for size:
Spoiler:


"As mentioned previously, the labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder—those who have no job and are not looking for one—are counted as not in the labor force. Many who are not in the labor force are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force. Since the mid-1990s, typically fewer than 1 in 10 people not in the labor force reported that they want a job.

A series of questions is asked each month of persons not in the labor force to obtain information about their desire for work, the reasons why they had not looked for work in the last 4 weeks, their prior job search, and their availability for work. These questions include the following (the bolded words are emphasized when read by the interviewers).

Do you currently want a job, either full or part time?
What is the main reason you were not looking for work during the last 4 weeks?
Did you look for work at any time during the last 12 months?
Last week, could you have started a job if one had been offered?
These questions form the basis for estimating the number of people who are not in the labor force but who are considered to be marginally attached to the labor force. These are individuals without jobs who are not currently looking for work (and therefore are not counted as unemployed), but who nevertheless have demonstrated some degree of labor force attachment. Specifically, to be counted as marginally attached to the labor force, they must indicate that they currently want a job, have looked for work in the last 12 months (or since they last worked if they worked within the last 12 months), and are available for work. Discouraged workers are a subset of the marginally attached. Discouraged workers report they are not currently looking for work for one of the following types of reasons:

They believe no job is available to them in their line of work or area.
They had previously been unable to find work.
They lack the necessary schooling, training, skills, or experience.
Employers think they are too young or too old, or
They face some other type of discrimination."


Ultimately, though, they are still are still counted, but not considered part of the labor force, so don't count to unemployment as per the number officially used. There is a separate number A6, (as opposed to 3) I believe that does include them. At least that's how I read it.

Help me, Rhonda. HA! 
   
Made in au
The Dread Evil Lord Varlak





 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I'm not sure about that, Seb. I think they are counted similar to retirees and people in school if they quit looking for over four weeks.


Sorry, I misread what you were saying. Thought you were talking about people on UI, not people who were no longer working. My bad.

But yes, people who are no longer actively looking for work are not counted in the standard measure. This is why, like I said earlier, there are different measures of unemployment. The standard is just counting people who don't have jobs and are actively looking. But then there's people who have been discouraged, given up on trying to find work and are instead looking after the kids full time or something like that. And there's also the underemployed, people who are in part time work when they want full time work, and people who have low skills jobs when they have qualifications and amibitions for something greater.

The issue, I think, is that people get a loose understanding of these different measures and think that there's somehow some kind of con going on. That government is tricking people by using the lowest figure. But the measures all move in line, certainly in the short term. It'd be a nonsense to list every single measure of unemployment every time you wanted to mention what direction the job market is heading in. So you pick one measure, and it makes sense to use the simplest and most direct measure.

It still makes sense to track all the others because they answer important structural questions about the economy. But they don't need to be brought up every single time someone wants to talk about employment.

“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”

Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something. 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine






 sebster wrote:
 Gordon Shumway wrote:
I'm not sure about that, Seb. I think they are counted similar to retirees and people in school if they quit looking for over four weeks.


Sorry, I misread what you were saying. Thought you were talking about people on UI, not people who were no longer working. My bad.

But yes, people who are no longer actively looking for work are not counted in the standard measure. This is why, like I said earlier, there are different measures of unemployment. The standard is just counting people who don't have jobs and are actively looking. But then there's people who have been discouraged, given up on trying to find work and are instead looking after the kids full time or something like that. And there's also the underemployed, people who are in part time work when they want full time work, and people who have low skills jobs when they have qualifications and amibitions for something greater.

The issue, I think, is that people get a loose understanding of these different measures and think that there's somehow some kind of con going on. That government is tricking people by using the lowest figure. But the measures all move in line, certainly in the short term. It'd be a nonsense to list every single measure of unemployment every time you wanted to mention what direction the job market is heading in. So you pick one measure, and it makes sense to use the simplest and most direct measure.

It still makes sense to track all the others because they answer important structural questions about the economy. But they don't need to be brought up every single time someone wants to talk about employment.


No disagreement there, just making sure we weren't talking past each other

Help me, Rhonda. HA! 
   
Made in us
Androgynous Daemon Prince of Slaanesh





Norwalk, Connecticut

What I have learned from this thread is that I have a headache.
30 minutes of training for any job, my ass. Having seen nothing of value posted by one member, I think it's time to use the ignore function. If everyone does that to him, he won't be able to dominate the thread anymore...

Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.

Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.


Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.  
   
Made in jp
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer






Somewhere in south-central England.

When I worked at Selfridges I had a week's training -- company history, ethos and policy, basic consumer law, how to operate the till and take different card payments, the best way to approach and help customers, security and so on. This was before the days of diversity training.

I was employed for three months as extra help at Christmas.

I still remember some of the lessons.

I'm writing a load of fiction. My latest story starts here... This is the index of all the stories...

We're not very big on official rules. Rules lead to people looking for loopholes. What's here is about it. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Building a blood in water scent

Asterios wrote:

no, training is still 30 minutes, training on what you are working on and will be assigned too, you watch video's for a couple hours, and fill out paperwork, this is from the Manager at McDonald's and I will believe them over you or your friend or whatever.


Are you genuinely unable to imagine an experience that is not your own, or are you simply unemployed and bored and looking for lulz?

Anyway, to try and drag this trainwreck thread back OT:

Trump recently called Obama's speech on Hiroshima "pathetic" and "incompetent".

Is this effective campaigning or is Trump's game slipping since the heady days of calling for the murder of terrorist's families?

Edit: fix quote derp

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/31 16:36:04


We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

I give the edge to Trump now actually. The Democrats are choosing possibly one of the worst possible candidates in their history to run against him. Obama would have wiped the floor with this guy. My only hope is the Hillary Viper Assassination Squad, the best political murder company in the business takes him out.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 Frazzled wrote:
I give the edge to Trump now actually.



Wait... you're serious!?!?!
The Democrats are choosing possibly one of the worst possible candidates in their history to run against him. Obama would have wiped the floor with this guy. My only hope is the Hillary Viper Assassination Squad, the best political murder company in the business takes him out.

Donnie will take himself out... there's no way that his rhetorics works in the General Election.


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

Asterios wrote:


McDonalds has a 30 minute training period, and any maintenance required is brought in from outside of the place, in fact they tell you specifically if anything breaks tell the manager and the manager calls the repair guy once getting approval from the owner,



<---- Was married to an actual McDonald's Store Manager, multi-store supervisor, and then corporate training manager for 13 years.

While individual franchise owners differ, what you posted is a-typical. Training does not stop with McD or any major corporation. You do get videos and a 30 minute training for your first assignment, generally dropping fries, so they can see if you're a feth up. After that, the training is pretty constant. Training on new positions, training for assistant managers, food safety training, how to order gak, etc.

Is it the majority of your time? Certainly not. You still have to DO stuff.

Is it 30 minutes, a video, and a slap on the ass? No.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 feeder wrote:

Is this effective campaigning or is Trump's game slipping since the heady days of calling for the murder of terrorist's families?


Maybe his handlers are teaching him new words?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/31 17:05:21


DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in us
Member of the Ethereal Council






A little bit of my experiance,training is nearly constant for awile at my jobs. You cant learn to do everything in a half an hour. Granted, I went into my most recent job, skipped training day and became my bosses favorite worker and the only employee to get a thank you from the park's manager.
In the end though, I do believe you get what you put out in a job. You work hard no matter the job, people will take notice. The people who constantly complain about gak jobs and how their boss is promoting other people over them, arethe people who have no work ethic or drive for improvement.

5000pts 6000pts 3000pts
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

whembly wrote:
Donnie will take himself out... there's no way that his rhetorics works in the General Election.




I said that about 20 times in the primary too. Since he won that he has continued to control the media narrative.
Further HRC hasn't come around to taking the wind out of his arguments by addressing those legitimate concerns realistically.

I do hope you are correct though. I had previously thought she would stomp him in debates, and her machine would go through him like the 3rd Army through the Wehrmacht in 44. Lately I have been having concerns. She's just such a bad candidate. Why did the Democrats put their eggs behind her?

For my part I can't vote for either in good conscience.

<---- Was married to an actual McDonald's Store Manager, multi-store supervisor, and then corporate training manager for 13 years.

Wow three McDonald's employees? You must REEEEEAAAALLLLLY likie the McGriddle...



Is it 30 minutes, a video, and a slap on the ass? No.

My experiences jives with this actually. I have worked for multiple big box retailers, a so called amusement park, hunting mastadons etc. There was no such thing as ongoing training.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/31 17:39:37


-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

 Frazzled wrote:


<---- Was married to an actual McDonald's Store Manager, multi-store supervisor, and then corporate training manager for 13 years.

Wow three McDonald's employees? You must REEEEEAAAALLLLLY likie the McGriddle...



I'm lovin' it...

DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

Wait... wut? Saw this on twittah?


BREAKING: Hillary Clinton to be indicted on Federal Racketeering Charges #RICO

FEDS threaten to go publichttps://t.co/mpM9XuT2zR

— Jared Wyand (@JaredWyand) May 29, 2016


Article removed by HuffingtonPost claiming Hillary Clinton will be indicted on Federal Racketeering charges.
The key bit:
James Comey and The FBI will present a recommendation to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the Department of Justice, that includes a cogent argument that the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors to individuals, corporations and even governments both foreign and domestic.


Things to make you go hmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Dare we hope, that Sanders can win now? We all know we want an aging Socialist vs aging Capitalist General Election!

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/05/31 18:34:30


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut






New Orleans, LA

"the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors"

Mmm... talk dirty to me, Huffington. Yeah.

DA:70S+G+M+B++I++Pw40k08+D++A++/fWD-R+T(M)DM+
 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

 kronk wrote:
"the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors"

Mmm... talk dirty to me, Huffington. Yeah.

Either he knows somebody in the FBI, but cannot divulge the source yet, or he's pulling this from his nether region.

Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Mutated Chosen Chaos Marine






 whembly wrote:
 kronk wrote:
"the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors"

Mmm... talk dirty to me, Huffington. Yeah.

Either he knows somebody in the FBI, but cannot divulge the source yet, or he's pulling this from his nether region.


The brief snippet bio at the bottom of the story describes how "He draws on his research in the fields of combination of psychology, physics, wisdom traditions, sociology and history". The "documentaries" he is responsible for sound similar to "The Secrect" so I am guessing his nether region is a safe place to assume.

Edit: snopes is on the case: http://www.snopes.com/clinton-federal-racketeering-charges/

Of course, I bet The Hair mentions it at a rally at some point as if it were an actual story. Vince Foster 2.0

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/31 20:27:28


Help me, Rhonda. HA! 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Ho-hum)





Curb stomping in the Eye of Terror!

Jesus wept...

Yes, Trump Can Win
Spoiler:
Throughout this primary season, I’ve had an ongoing fight with a co-worker about whether Donald Trump could win the general election. I was pretty firmly in the “if the economy collapses, maybe, but he is much more likely to drag the entire Republican field down with him” camp.

To resolve this, my co-worker invited me to set up some benchmarks: what we would have to see in order to believe that Trump really could win the election – not just that he had some sort of outside shot in a perfect storm, but that he had a legitimate, realistic chance of winning.

To cover my bases, I tried to set benchmarks that I thought would be really difficult for Trump to meet: He would have to pull within five points of Hillary Clinton in the RCP Average within a month of wrapping up the GOP race (this was back when he was down by 10), and then he would have to prove that he could lead her in a polling average (rather than in the occasional outlying poll) by the end of the Republican convention.

So, here we are. Last week, Trump was up by 0.2 percent in the RCP Average, meeting both of my goalposts two months ahead of schedule. I still believe that he is the underdog, but I have to concede that he can win. I would put his chances more around 30 percent today. If at some point he establishes a durable lead (he returned to trailing Clinton Friday morning), or if he can push his average up into the high forties, I will revise things accordingly.

Why might this continue? Here are a five reasons:

1. Their unfavorables cancel out.

For much of this campaign, we’ve focused relentlessly on Trump’s high unfavorable ratings. This is appropriate, given that he has the highest unfavorables of any presidential nominee in years for which we have data.

What’s received far less attention is that he is running against the nominee with the second-highest unfavorables of any presidential nominee in years for which we have data.

This gap also has been shrinking. Trump’s average rating runs 35.2 percent favorable and 58 percent favorable. Clinton’s are 36.3 percent favorable and 56.3 percent unfavorable. That’s not a huge difference.

Even if we take into account individual polls showing higher spreads, we might ask ourselves “Does this really matter?” and reasonably conclude, “No, it does not.” Think of it this way: Assume that the base for both parties is about 40 percent of the electorate. You can make a case for it being a bit larger or a bit smaller, but just assume this is where “yellow dog Democrats” and their Republican counterparts begin.

If this is more or less correct, then Clinton and Trump probably have maxed out their unfavorables among opposing partisans, among Independents, and are now cutting into his/her own base. But these voters will ultimately hold their nose and vote for their candidate (witness the ever-shrinking faction of #NeverTrump voters on the Republican side, and the fact that Trump’s -- and Clinton’s -- vote shares are considerably higher than their favorables). I’m not saying this makes no difference, as voters can stay home. I’m just saying both Clinton and Trump are probably past the point where they receive a diminishing penalty for their unfavorable ratings.

If you’re still unconvinced, think of it yet another way: If the 2004 presidential election had been held when George W. Bush had a 90 percent job approval rating, it is unlikely he’d have received anywhere near 90 percent of the vote. We can be reasonably certain about this, given Franklin Roosevelt’s re-election results with job approval ratings north of 70 percent.

2. Candidates don’t matter much.

Taking this a step farther, it is almost axiomatic among political scientists that candidate effects don’t matter much. That’s not to say they don’t matter at all, just that they are overstated. When I built my Senate model several years ago, I found that controversial candidates like Christine O’Donnell and Ken Buck probably only cost Republicans a couple of points (O’Donnell’s vote share actually closely mirrored the president’s unfavorable ratings). What you’re basically left with are what we call “fundamentals”: job approval, economic growth, and the like.

Right now, the fundamentals point to a close race: President Obama’s tepid job approval combined with mediocre economic growth and second-term fatigue probably create a roughly even playing field between the parties. The polling right now actually reflects that more closely than the polling from a month ago did.

3. Trump might do better with nonwhites than you think.

My operating assumption has long been that Trump would run about as poorly as John McCain and Mitt Romney among African-Americans, and also would run significantly worse among Hispanics. This would require Trump to secure about 64 percent of the white vote in order to win – a tough haul. But Trump’s numbers among nonwhites have actually been relatively decent. If we assume that undecided voters are ultimately representative of decided voters (within groups), Fox News has him winning 7 percent of African-Americans and 27 percent of Hispanics – roughly Romney’s showing in 2012. ABC News has him winning a little bit more than 20 percent of the nonwhite vote – a bit better than Romney (Fox News also has him eventually winning 64 percent of the white vote).

This has led some to question the accuracy of these polls. You can (and should) read a more fulsome response from Jon Cohen and Mark Blumenthal of SurveyMonkey here, but I’ll just fall back upon a saying from one of my favorite law professors: When someone’s argument boils down to “it cannot be,” it means that it probably is.

Furthermore, it’s entirely possible that the media’s single-minded focus upon Hispanics as immigration reform advocates is simply wrongheaded. I’ve written about this at much greater length here and here, but it could be the case that Romney’s showing in 2012 represents a floor, that immigration isn’t as high-salience an issue among Hispanics as many assume, that some of Trump’s appeal to working-class whites translates to working-class Hispanics and African-Americans, and that he will perform surprisingly well (or at least surprisingly not poorly) on Election Day.

4. Both candidates have room to grow.

The common rejoinder is that these polls represent the state of the race with Trump having wrapped up the Republican nomination, while Clinton is stuck in a nasty race with Bernie Sanders. Once she nails down the nomination, the race should shift back to her (under this argument).

First, I’m not entirely certain the assumption that she will win over all of the Sanderistas is correct. While she will certainly win the overwhelming majority of them, Trump’s strategy for this election – coming at the traditional right/left line orthogonally on issues like trade and foreign policy – could result in some of these voters backing Trump; we would expect these voters to be disproportionately represented in the ranks of people resisting Clinton today.

But more to the point, the ABC News poll finds that Trump is, in fact, pulling in 11 percent of Democrats to Clinton’s 8 percent of Republicans, but that only 3 percent of Democrats are undecided, while 7 percent of Republicans haven’t made up their minds. The Fox News poll has similar findings, with Clinton and Trump both taking an equal number of voters from the other party, and showing a similar number of undecided partisans.

You may say “Sean, Sanders’ supporters aren’t Democrats. They’re independents.” Fair enough. One way to get at this would be to look at ideology, since they are presumably self-described liberals. The Fox News poll shows Trump winning 12 percent of liberal voters, while Clinton wins 13 percent of very conservative voters and 27 percent of somewhat conservative voters, and similar numbers of undecided voters. The ABC News poll shows Trump doing a bit better among liberals than Clinton is doing among conservatives, but this is offset by the fact that there are more liberals than conservatives in the poll.

In other words, there is probably room to grow for both Clinton and Trump. We can debate whether more liberals will come home to her than conservatives for Trump, but it isn’t an open-and-shut case.

5. Hillary Clinton is a bad candidate running a bad campaign with bad commercials.

It’s no great secret that Clinton isn’t a natural politician. What’s been more surprising to me is how bad her campaign has been run. Part of this is that it is still early; Team Clinton is probably still feeling Trump out.

But part of it is probably that Team Clinton is experiencing the frustrations that the various Republican campaigns encountered in the winter and fall: Trump is a tough candidate to run against because he doesn’t fit into the typical categories.

Think of it this way: From 1968 to 1988, Republicans basically ran cookie-cutter campaigns against their Democratic opponents: They are liberal. It worked magnificently, until 1992, when they suddenly encountered a candidate against whom the shoe didn’t really fit. Democrats moderated their positions on certain issues and flipped the narrative. For the next 20 years, the generic Democratic campaign became one where Republicans were depicted as agents of the rich, of social conservatives, and of reckless foreign policy adventurists. It was effective, in part because the shoe often fit.

It’s become obvious that, at least for now, Clinton is running the same sort of campaign against Trump. It isn’t clear, however, how well it works against someone with such a strong nouveau riche affect (at best). Trump isn’t campaigning (anymore) on massive tax cuts for the rich. He’s against free trade, and is arguably more of a dove on foreign policy than Clinton. And the two obvious themes against Trump -- that he doesn’t know what he’s doing/is erratic/is inconsistent and that he is actually a right-wing ideologue – are actually in tension with each other. Because Trumpism is such an odd mishmash of beliefs, it’s hard to run the generic Democratic campaign against him.

Even the details of the Clinton campaign have been off. This started with her launch, but has continued into the advertising. Tom Edsall has an excellent piece describing an advertisement hitting Trump on his comments about women, but also explaining how it falls flat, especially among men. Her “woman card” response – e-mailing woman cards to supporters – was odd. I thought the point was that there wasn’t a woman’s card to play?

Other advertisements have been problematic, from the one asserting that Trump always keeps his promises (a key attribute for non-ideological undecided voters) to another that features a flat-toned, emotionless, near-scowling Clinton making pronouncements against Trump that would instead appeal to a wide range of the electorate (the public is actually favorably inclined toward requiring citizens to learn English and, much as I hate to say it, the use of waterboarding). Again, part of this is just the difficulty running against a malleable candidate without a voting history.

Finally, it isn’t clear how well equipped the Democrats are to handle an all-out beer house brawler like Trump. Every utterance of “surely he won’t go there” has been proved wrong. The instinct that this will catch up with him eventually is a tempting one, but at this point, an awful lot of what we might call the “OMG Trump” reaction is baked into the existing numbers.

Again, none of this should be taken as a prediction of a Trump victory. There’s a fair amount of devil’s advocacy built into the foregoing. But I can’t say, objectively, that he’s a heavy underdog anymore.

America is so boned...

EDIT: I did laugh at the writer's: Finally, it isn’t clear how well equipped the Democrats are to handle an all-out beer house brawler like Trump. Every utterance of “surely he won’t go there” has been proved wrong.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/31 20:31:13


Live Ork, Be Ork. or D'Ork!


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




actually if Sanders decides to run as an independent, yeah Trump will win.

Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Building a blood in water scent

Asterios wrote:
actually if Sanders decides to run as an independent, yeah Trump will win.


Sanders won't do that. He is well aware a Drumpf Presidency would be disastrous.

We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 
   
Made in us
Battlefield Tourist




MN (Currently in WY)

Whembly, get back to me when Trump can actually flip any states on the Obama/Romney Electoral map. Until I see consistent proof that he can, the rest is typical election bullgak.

Support Blood and Spectacles Publishing:
https://www.patreon.com/Bloodandspectaclespublishing 
   
Made in us
5th God of Chaos! (Yea'rly!)




The Great State of Texas

 Easy E wrote:
Whembly, get back to me when Trump can actually flip any states on the Obama/Romney Electoral map. Until I see consistent proof that he can, the rest is typical election bullgak.


Hopefully. However many of the rustbelt states could turn.

-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 feeder wrote:
Asterios wrote:
actually if Sanders decides to run as an independent, yeah Trump will win.


Sanders won't do that. He is well aware a Drumpf Presidency would be disastrous.


you sure? he is till running even though he has pretty much lost the primary.

Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in us
Androgynous Daemon Prince of Slaanesh





Norwalk, Connecticut

I'm one of the few people who voted for Clinton in the primaries who wouldn't be afraid of Trump winning. I actually kind of look forward to the possibility!!

Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.

Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.


Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 timetowaste85 wrote:
I'm one of the few people who voted for Clinton in the primaries who wouldn't be afraid of Trump winning. I actually kind of look forward to the possibility!!


in other words anyone but Sanders ?

Thinks Palladium books screwed the pooch on the Robotech project. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut




Building a blood in water scent

Asterios wrote:
 feeder wrote:
Asterios wrote:
actually if Sanders decides to run as an independent, yeah Trump will win.


Sanders won't do that. He is well aware a Drumpf Presidency would be disastrous.


you sure? he is till running even though he has pretty much lost the primary.


Pretty much =/= definitely. I'm sure he'll concede once math smacks him down. Until then, he'll continue to make noise and draw attention to his causes.

We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” 
   
Made in us
Androgynous Daemon Prince of Slaanesh





Norwalk, Connecticut

Asterios wrote:
 timetowaste85 wrote:
I'm one of the few people who voted for Clinton in the primaries who wouldn't be afraid of Trump winning. I actually kind of look forward to the possibility!!


in other words anyone but Sanders ?


In a word: yup.

Longer version: I don't dislike. I have nothing against him. But he's too old for office and his ideas sound great in a perfect world. But we don't live in that world. He's too much of an idealist, and I don't think he'll actuall accomplish anything more than having a heart attack in office.

Reality is a nice place to visit, but I'd hate to live there.

Manchu wrote:I'm a Catholic. We eat our God.


Due to work, I can usually only ship any sales or trades out on Saturday morning. Please trade/purchase with this in mind.  
   
 
Forum Index » Off-Topic Forum
Go to: