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.

Crispy78 wrote:
Interesting coincidence that he's refusing to publish his tax returns though, isn't it?

Yep, especially now that it's been all but shown that he's paid little or no federal taxes, and he's claimed that made him smart. So the only reasons left for why he might be refusing to release his tax returns are either that they will show he is nowhere near as rich as he claims, or his charitable donations are nothing like what was claimed. Or sheer bloody mindedness, I guess.

 sebster wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
Interesting coincidence that he's refusing to publish his tax returns though, isn't it?

Yep, especially now that it's been all but shown that he's paid little or no federal taxes, and he's claimed that made him smart. So the only reasons left for why he might be refusing to release his tax returns are either that they will show he is nowhere near as rich as he claims, or his charitable donations are nothing like what was claimed. Or sheer bloody mindedness, I guess.

It can be all those things.

Down ballot races are in many respects more important than national races as the people that get elected will have more direct influence on your lives on a regular basis than PotUS and Congress.

Even with that fact there's nothing wrong with abstaining from voting. No candidate or party is entitled to your vote and there's no sense in voting for people you are opposed to or uninformed about just for the sake of showing up and voting for somebody. If nobody in any race on the ballot earns your vote or is somebody you want to support then you shouldn't just guilt yourself into voting just because. Everyone who wants to vote should vote their conscience and if you don't want to vote then you don't have to, the obligation to do so is a self imposed one.

I was not implying that a person NEEDS to vote or HAS to vote only that it might be in their best interest to do so as far as everything else on the ballot. But to each their own.

 whembly wrote:
Here something... a focus group by Frank Luntz on 60 minutes last weekend:
Focus group reflects nation's dark mood ahead of Election Day

Frank Luntz is a loyal footsoldier of Gingrich's wing of the Republican party. The guy started his work with Newt Gingrich and helped formulate and sell Gingrich's strategy of using despair and contempt for government to put the Republicans back in the majority. It really shouldn't surprise anyone when Luntz puts up a piece that confirms the dark message of the Trump campaign.

That doesn't mean the piece you've posted here isn't worth reading, but everyone should understand that it isn't journalism or anything like that. It's just part of the Trump campaign strategy, or possibly part of the beginning of the Republican campaign strategy for combating a Clinton presidency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:
How do I know what a candidate stands for, how will their policies effect me and, more importantly, how can I believe the information that answers the first few questions.
Media sources are clearly biased and the only true way to judge a candidate is by their past actions.
But again I have a conundrum: How do I know the information about those past actions are correct, or being presented in a biased way?

Read the candidates pages. Read interviews and speaches from the candidates. Read media pieces, and use critical thinking to see through the bias as much as possible.

Edit: besides, regular voters don't get to vote for Potus anyway, we vote for an Electoral college member to vote for us, but they can still vote for someone else, so what the feth is the point?

There's been a handful of times that faithless electors have changed their votes to someone else, but never in a close election. Your argument above is like saying the world could be destroyed by an asteroid tomorrow, so what is the point in going to work? Well, it could happen, but it's very unlikely so really it's best just to carry on as if it isn't going to happen.

 sebster wrote:

Crispy78 wrote:
Interesting coincidence that he's refusing to publish his tax returns though, isn't it?

Yep, especially now that it's been all but shown that he's paid little or no federal taxes, and he's claimed that made him smart. So the only reasons left for why he might be refusing to release his tax returns are either that they will show he is nowhere near as rich as he claims, or his charitable donations are nothing like what was claimed. Or sheer bloody mindedness, I guess.

"...or..."? "And", methinks.

If anyone wants to complain about the evil liberal media being in Clinton's camp... holy gak just please don't.

 Galef wrote:
So you are saying that if I don't want Trump to be POTUS, I HAVE TO vote Clinton. How about I choose the option to not let ANY money get taken out of my wallet?

Because that isn't an option. Either Trump or Clinton will be president.

I would have voted Clinton in the past, but mainly because I've always considered myself liberal. Talking to some of my more politically savvy friends and they inform me that I am more of an idealistic socialist. I want to see things the way they "should" be and am confused by how things actually "are".

Then you should be voting Democrat. They're lukewarm on the socialist front, but they have some policies that push in that direction (higher minimum wages, greater share of taxes paid by the very rich).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Breotan wrote:
Don't count those eggs before they're laid, Co'tor Shas. According to the Drudge Report...

First up, holy crap please stop reading Drudge. Last time you linked to Drudge it was for a survey on the first presidential debate claiming Trump won. Turns out the survey was inviting anyone on the internet to come and give their opinion, and even letting people vote more than once. This is the quality of stuff you get from Drudge.

Second up, what Drudge posted there is total nonsense. The only show party affiliation, not actual votes. Speculating on what the party identification of early voters might mean for actual votes can be useful where there's big change, as is the case in Nevada, but if the difference is between a slight advantage and an even slighter advantage

Lastly, the polls put Florida right now as a coin flip, so that's probably what it is. The issue, though, is that Trump needs Florida, and North Carolina, and then to get either Nevada & New Hampshire, or Pennsylvania. If Trump squeaks over hte line in Florida, the odds of him getting North Carolina get smaller, and the odds of getting any of the rest are bugger all.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 wuestenfux wrote:
But what I've learned is that Ohio is always on the winner's side.

Meh. There was a time when the Democrats always carried the South. Stuff changes. Ohio has drifted red relative to much of the rest of the country in this election, it's got zero chance of being the tipping point state for either candidate this election.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

Voting for Trump may be wrong, but it’s not crazy.

(snip)

Yuval Levin and Ramesh Ponnuru have explored in detail in NR how Hillary’s liberalism presents a mortal threat to our democratic institutions, a threat that is all the more insidious because it is incremental, mainstreamed, and normalized by our elites, and painted in bland tones in contrast to Trump’s carnival barking. One of the great frustrations of a lot of Trump supporters is that Trump gets lacerated in the press for saying things bluntly that Democrats have been saying and doing for years, but in the polite language of the legal profession and the Beltway insider.

Well, it's a bit crazy...

It's also more than bit two faced, you don't get to open with a plea for conciliation between partisan groups in your opening, and then dump some gibberish about mainstream liberal policies being an insidious threat to democratic institutions.

 skyth wrote:
For the Florida voting, that only looked at what party the person was. In this election, I could see a lot of R's voting against Trump.

Yeah, I linked an article about early voting in Forida a few pages ago. Apparently 26% of early republican voters are voting for Clinton, whereas only 6% of Democratic voters are voting for Trump. Since the number of cross party votes has been approximately even in Florida the last couple of elections, and sub 10%, and will make a big dint in Trumps numbers. I really don't think Florida is going to be as close as many people think.

 Galef wrote:
But not voting is a valid pov too and I don't like it when people say that is "unacceptable" or "un-American", because really the only thing I find truly "un-American" is being told you have to do something because "reasons"

No, not voting is not a valid point of view. The only way to come to a conclusion of "I don't care who runs the country/state/whatever" is through sheer ignorance, and refusing to care is inexcusable. As is being so oblivious to the world around you that you don't even know that an election is happening.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Galef wrote:
But not voting is a valid pov too and I don't like it when people say that is "unacceptable" or "un-American", because really the only thing I find truly "un-American" is being told you have to do something because "reasons"

No, not voting is not a valid point of view. The only way to come to a conclusion of "I don't care who runs the country/state/whatever" is through sheer ignorance, and refusing to care is inexcusable. As is being so oblivious to the world around you that you don't even know that an election is happening.

Or anxiety. Or depression. Or schizophrenia.

I can go on.

Well, almost time to see who we get saddled with for the next 4 yrs. I already got to vote thanks to health issues, and sent the ballot for Jill Stein....now before folks get weird, it is necessary for her to get 5% for Federal recognition and funding to become a major party so that they can be a real competitor next time around. If she wound up the actual winner, even better and more to my liking as it would upset the apple-cart. There cannot be change if we vote the two wings of the two faced corporate party. Okay now that I have that off my chest,

I am unsure how well the Libertarian meltdown king Johnson will fare.

But the script is for either Trump or Hillary to win, and some are upset due to Trump being all sorts fo crude things, but he has not started wars or committed acts of regime change, nor has he toppled nations, so he may be ineffective for his 4yrs, and liberals can rest calmer for such a view.

Hillary, now she has done all the things Trump has not. and she has a history that makes me shudder, and let us not let her or the dems off the hook for a fixed rigged and stolen primary election which has showed us that our politicians are very much NOT for all the rest of us, they are servants of the Rich, the Powerful, the Elites and the Corporate Fatcats.

So why Stein? I wanted to have the Honest woman in the WH, not have our nation ruled over by the Queen of Crime. The Clintons proved also Democrats can do more damage to the New Deal from FDR than any Republicans would. History showed that Eisenhower gave more muscle to the New Deal.

Either way you vote, keep ready for the ride we all will have thanks to the corporate collusion between the media and the politicians who full on support eternal wars, TPP and fracking and other negatives that screw all of us, the little people each time they feel like pleasing their money string pullers.

 shasolenzabi wrote:
it is necessary for her to get 5% for Federal recognition and funding to become a major party so that they can be a real competitor next time around.

No it is not necessary, because it will not accomplish anything. Getting 5% of the vote only helps the far-right extremists like Trump, there is no realistic hope of the green party being a real competitor. I've said this before but I guess I need to say it again: the structure of the US system makes it virtually impossible for third party candidates to have any success. And this is highlighted very nicely by the fact that the optimistic wishful-thinking goal for third-party candidates is winning a mere 5% of the vote so they can be recognized with a "you tried, good job!" participation trophy. The green party is irrelevant and a waste of a vote, period.

But the script is for either Trump or Hillary to win, and some are upset due to Trump being all sorts fo crude things, but he has not started wars or committed acts of regime change, nor has he toppled nations, so he may be ineffective for his 4yrs, and liberals can rest calmer for such a view.

No, he hasn't started wars yet because he hasn't had the power to do so. I'd like to keep it that way, given his own statements about his plans for war:

ISIS is making a tremendous amount of money because of the oil that they took away, they have some in Syria, they have some in Iraq, I would bomb the gak out of them.

I would just bomb those suckers, and that's right, I'd blow up the pipes, I'd blow up the refineries, I'd blow up ever single inch, there would be nothing left.

And you know what, you'll get Exxon to come in there, and in two months, you ever see these guys? How good they are, the great oil companies, they'll rebuild it brand new... And I'll take the oil.

Hillary, now she has done all the things Trump has not. and she has a history that makes me shudder, and let us not let her or the dems off the hook for a fixed rigged and stolen primary election which has showed us that our politicians are very much NOT for all the rest of us, they are servants of the Rich, the Powerful, the Elites and the Corporate Fatcats.

Yes, Clinton is a typical politician and politicians represent the interests of the powerful. But if you think Trump would be any better you don't understand the situation, at all. You're talking about a person who was born into wealth and privilege and hasn't looked back. Trump is the 1% and he is quite happy to screw over anyone less important if it makes him money.

So why Stein? I wanted to have the Honest woman in the WH, not have our nation ruled over by the Queen of Crime.

Too bad, because your choices are Clinton or Trump. Pretending that your third-party vote is anything other than "I'm ok with the idea of spray tan wannabe-Hitler being president" is only fooling yourself.

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Well, almost time to see who we get saddled with for the next 4 yrs. I already got to vote thanks to health issues, and sent the ballot for Jill Stein....now before folks get weird, it is necessary for her to get 5% for Federal recognition and funding to become a major party so that they can be a real competitor next time around. If she wound up the actual winner, even better and more to my liking as it would upset the apple-cart. There cannot be change if we vote the two wings of the two faced corporate party. Okay now that I have that off my chest,

So why Stein? I wanted to have the Honest woman in the WH,

I disagree with your assessment of Stein... IMO, if she were honest, she wouldn't have made vague statements that even gave a hint of listening to anti-vax crowds. She's a fething MD, and while I know she has an ethical mandate toward her patients, but I was always of the view that this sort of ethical behavior extends beyond my own circle.

Now, I can't fault you for voting Green in order to hopefully get them into a more prominent position, I just have a strong aversion to Stein, as I do all of the other candidates not named Joe Exotic (sadly, he wasn't on my state's ballot)

Politicians certainly do love deflecting anger at the upper class towards the opposing party instead. Class warfare indeed... maybe if the class at the top actually let some of that trickle down people wouldn't have as much of a reason to be angry eh? But hey, now I'm talking about caring for your fellow humans, and that's crazy talk.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Politicians certainly do love deflecting anger at the upper class towards the opposing party instead. Class warfare indeed... maybe if the class at the top actually let some of that trickle down people wouldn't have as much of a reason to be angry eh? But hey, now I'm talking about caring for your fellow humans, and that's crazy talk.

Pfft... Everyone knows that trickle down is such complete BS that even the hate is collected and not distributed out

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Well, almost time to see who we get saddled with for the next 4 yrs. I already got to vote thanks to health issues, and sent the ballot for Jill Stein....now before folks get weird, it is necessary for her to get 5% for Federal recognition and funding to become a major party so that they can be a real competitor next time around.

To be a major party you need to be somewhat sane. Just ignoring Stein's completely ridiculous policy positions and giving her your vote is doing no-one any favours.

I am unsure how well the Libertarian meltdown king Johnson will fare.

Probably about double the votes that Stein gets. Which is reasonable, because not knowing about Aleppo or the name of one foreign leader is pretty bad for a grown adult, let alone a presidential candidate, but it's still a mile better than Stein and her party's policy positions.

and let us not let her or the dems off the hook for a fixed rigged and stolen primary election

Oh for feth's sake. Yes, Clinton rigged the election by the sneaky and underhanded trick of getting 3.7 million more votes than Sanders.

So why Stein? I wanted to have the Honest woman in the WH

Stein is a doctor, and would know the extensive work done in ensuring vaccines, even old vaccines with mercury, posed no health threat. Despite this, she has repeatedly courted the anti-vaxxer idiots. Stein is more than happy to lie to win votes.

TPP and fracking and other negatives that screw all of us...

I think now would be a nice to for your to give a summary of TPP. I mean if you know that it screws everyone, you must know how. So please, give us all a summary of what TPP is, and how it might screw everyone.

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Clinton directed her maid to print out classified materials
jfc...

Gee, a Clinton bashing story in a rag owned by Rupert Murdoch, and written by the same guy who wrote "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington".

You genuinely deserve that clueless nob Gary Johnson as your candidate.

Doesn't matter who printed it, all that matters is whether they're telling the truth. Are they?

WHAT!? Sources don't matter? Spin doesn't matter? Bias doesn't matter? HUH? As far as the "truth" being told, once again I'll reference FBI investigation and reiteration of previous findings, conclusion and their validity.

Of course they do.

But it is lazy to dismiss something out of hand without any attempt to refute it. Bias does not automatically mean some argument or claim is automatically false.

I don't want to hear your partisan hate boner for anything and everything that the other side says or how much you distrust and loathe the sources they cite, I want to know if a specific claim or argument is true or false. Is that too much to ask?

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Well, almost time to see who we get saddled with for the next 4 yrs. I already got to vote thanks to health issues, and sent the ballot for Jill Stein....now before folks get weird, it is necessary for her to get 5% for Federal recognition and funding to become a major party so that they can be a real competitor next time around. If she wound up the actual winner, even better and more to my liking as it would upset the apple-cart. There cannot be change if we vote the two wings of the two faced corporate party. Okay now that I have that off my chest,

I am unsure how well the Libertarian meltdown king Johnson will fare.

But the script is for either Trump or Hillary to win, and some are upset due to Trump being all sorts fo crude things, but he has not started wars or committed acts of regime change, nor has he toppled nations, so he may be ineffective for his 4yrs, and liberals can rest calmer for such a view.

Hillary, now she has done all the things Trump has not. and she has a history that makes me shudder, and let us not let her or the dems off the hook for a fixed rigged and stolen primary election which has showed us that our politicians are very much NOT for all the rest of us, they are servants of the Rich, the Powerful, the Elites and the Corporate Fatcats.

So why Stein? I wanted to have the Honest woman in the WH, not have our nation ruled over by the Queen of Crime. The Clintons proved also Democrats can do more damage to the New Deal from FDR than any Republicans would. History showed that Eisenhower gave more muscle to the New Deal.

Either way you vote, keep ready for the ride we all will have thanks to the corporate collusion between the media and the politicians who full on support eternal wars, TPP and fracking and other negatives that screw all of us, the little people each time they feel like pleasing their money string pullers.

Another wasted vote buying into the false equivalency lie. Knocking GJ was a nice touch, coming, as it did from a supporter of an even more fringe movement. Well done, comrade.

Here's some interesting numbers to consider...

Based on her own history, her poll ratings are, in all reality, not going to be reflected in actual votes. Not even close. In 2012, she was running a steady 4% in the polls, but on election day she received only 0.36% of the popular vote. In other words, more than 9 out of 10 voters who told pollsters that they favored Jill Stein, either voted for someone else on election day or they didn't vote at all. The reason for this disparity is that while many progressives like to show their colors when talking to pollsters, they aren't really buying the Green Party line and throwing away their vote on election day. On Friday, Harvard Business Review published a report on how polls over estimate support for third-party candidates. This analysis has "Stein showing negligible levels of support from voters."

"When Greens achieve over 5% of the vote in 2016, we will receive national funding to keep building the non-corporate party of the people."
— Dr. Jill Stein (@DrJillStein) May 11, 2016

So the real "hill" that Jill needs to climb is not from 2% or 4% in the polls to a showing of 5% of the vote, but from a popular vote total of 0.36% in 2012 to over 5% in 2016. Since she isn't even doing as well in the pre-election polls this year as she did in 2012, that ain't going to happen. This is the truth that the Jill Stein campaign is trying to hide from its supporters. The truth that even if you give your vote to Jill Stein in the hopes of winning a place on the ballot for the Green Party in 2020, you are throwing your vote away.

 sebster wrote:

Lastly, the polls put Florida right now as a coin flip, so that's probably what it is. The issue, though, is that Trump needs Florida, and North Carolina, and then to get either Nevada & New Hampshire, or Pennsylvania. If Trump squeaks over hte line in Florida, the odds of him getting North Carolina get smaller, and the odds of getting any of the rest are bugger all.

Umm no. If I win coinflip I still have same chance to win next one as last one.

Unless Florida votes eat his votes in North Carolina(that would be odd voting system but maybe I have misunderstood how US voting system works) result on Florida don't have effect.

About only way it could effect odds of winning NC is if result is announced while NC is still voting and that influences voters.

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 BigWaaagh wrote:

 whembly wrote:


Clinton directed her maid to print out classified materials
jfc...

Gee, a Clinton bashing story in a rag owned by Rupert Murdoch, and written by the same guy who wrote "Infiltration: How Muslim Spies and Subversives have Penetrated Washington".

You genuinely deserve that clueless nob Gary Johnson as your candidate.

Doesn't matter who printed it, all that matters is whether they're telling the truth. Are they?

WHAT!? Sources don't matter? Spin doesn't matter? Bias doesn't matter? HUH? As far as the "truth" being told, once again I'll reference FBI investigation and reiteration of previous findings, conclusion and their validity.

Of course they do.

But it is lazy to dismiss something out of hand without any attempt to refute it. Bias does not automatically mean some argument or claim is automatically false.

I don't want to hear your partisan hate boner for anything and everything that the other side says or how much you distrust and loathe the sources they cite, I want to know if a specific claim or argument is true or false. Is that too much to ask?

You're damned right sources matter and when I see the FBI, who've more intimately than anyone else, looked at this email carnival ride up, down and sideways and concluded, once again, as they did, then I'm done validating this matter with the constant barrage of self-servicing attempts to grab another headline or 15 minutes of my attention. I have a hate boner, but it's for the partisan politicians, partisan reporters and their partisan rags constantly beating dead horses and scandal mongering for the sole purpose of distracting people. This email matter has been given more coverage than Watergate and that is the real crime in this matter!

Amazing to see so many answers that show the stockholm syndrome effect the corporates have brainwashed so many with that we have just two choices. America needs more than that, and no, I did not throw my vote away, that is merely Dem party claptrap as they have tried to make people via fear and fear alone.

Orange Hitler is another such piece of propaganda, and I voted my conscience.

But still vote LOTE and you still get evil. It will not change until people wise up and stop voting for team Red/Blue, which is actually two sides of a single party.

But yeah look up what Stockholm syndrome means, and also see how well rigged the system is with the "2-party" coin flip nonsense.

I am amongst those who want actual change, it ain't happening from inside the red/blue club, they are too bought , too corrupt, too far gone to fix.

But hey, I know what you who posted think, thanks for your time of puking the pablum at me


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Amazing to see so many answers that show the stockholm syndrome effect the corporates have brainwashed so many with that we have just two choices. America needs more than that, and no, I did not throw my vote away, that is merely Dem party claptrap as they have tried to make people via fear and fear alone.

Orange Hitler is another such piece of propaganda, and I voted my conscience.

But still vote LOTE and you still get evil. It will not change until people wise up and stop voting for team Red/Blue, which is actually two sides of a single party.

But yeah look up what Stockholm syndrome means, and also see how well rigged the system is with the "2-party" coin flip nonsense.

I am amongst those who want actual change, it ain't happening from inside the red/blue club, they are too bought , too corrupt, too far gone to fix.

But hey, I know what you who posted think, thanks for your time of puking the pablum at me.

And the Federal guidelines for a party to get the recognition and funding happens to be 5% or more, plain an simple. No matter what party that is not part of the insider red/blue paradigm,

time to cut the short hairs they have you by people.

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Amazing to see so many answers that show the stockholm syndrome effect the corporates have brainwashed so many with that we have just two choices. America needs more than that, and no, I did not throw my vote away, that is merely Dem party claptrap as they have tried to make people via fear and fear alone.

Orange Hitler is another such piece of propaganda, and I voted my conscience.

But still vote LOTE and you still get evil. It will not change until people wise up and stop voting for team Red/Blue, which is actually two sides of a single party.

But yeah look up what Stockholm syndrome means, and also see how well rigged the system is with the "2-party" coin flip nonsense.

I am amongst those who want actual change, it ain't happening from inside the red/blue club, they are too bought , too corrupt, too far gone to fix.

But hey, I know what you who posted think, thanks for your time of puking the pablum at me

You're missing the point with the whole tired 'Mother Jones' rhetoric. It's not that there isn't support or desire here for more parties, a lot of us have repeatedly posted that would be a good thing, it's just that if Dr. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are the third party options du jour, then "No thanks!".

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Amazing to see so many answers that show the stockholm syndrome effect the corporates have brainwashed so many with that we have just two choices. America needs more than that, and no, I did not throw my vote away, that is merely Dem party claptrap as they have tried to make people via fear and fear alone.

Now is hardly time to start protest voting when there's guy who could result in death of every person in the world and 3rd parties putting in BS choices to boot.

Vote for 3rd party when there's less at stakes and there's actually somebody who isn't sprouting BS almost as bad as Trump as 3rd party candinate.

tneva82 wrote:
Umm no. If I win coinflip I still have same chance to win next one as last one.

Unless Florida votes eat his votes in North Carolina(that would be odd voting system but maybe I have misunderstood how US voting system works) result on Florida don't have effect.

About only way it could effect odds of winning NC is if result is announced while NC is still voting and that influences voters.

No, you've missed my point. You are right that each state votes by itself, but that is not what I am talking about. What I am talking about is the odds that each state ends up with a voting total that is significantly different to its polling numbers.

Thing is, polling misses are correlated between states. So if one state ends up with a 3 point difference from its polls, then other similar states will probably end up with a similar difference. What many people have done when they've analysed the polls and determined a likely winner is to assume that for Trump to win he will have to beat his polling numbers in North Carolina, Florida, Nevada and New Hampshire*, and the odds of each of those states having a polling error is very unlikely. What they've missed is that the polling miss in one state will correlate with the polling miss in other states. So if the results come in on Tuesday and they show Trump winning Florida by 2 points, it's pretty likely he'll also be beating his polling numbers in New Hampshire by around the same, and will have carried both states.

The opposite is also true, of course, if it turns out that it is Clinton who is beating her poll numbers then she'll take Florida and North Carolina, Trump won't come close in New Hampshire Clinton will have a comfortable night.


*Or replace Nevada and New Hampshire with Pennsylvania.

I feel like the word 'sheeple', and the comic that follows, is fairly close to coming out.

 shasolenzabi wrote:
But yeah look up what Stockholm syndrome means...

Umm, Stockholm Syndrome is pretty well known. If you think dropping it here and asking people to go look it up is gonna give you some kind of credit, you might be punching out of your weight division. Dakka might be a little crazy, but it's well read enough to know concepts that have shown up in Die Hard movies.

I am amongst those who want actual change, it ain't happening from inside the red/blue club, they are too bought , too corrupt, too far gone to fix.

Being in favour of change, and then showing little to no concern over the quality of the policies and people in that change... well that's the logic that leads people to Trump. That the same non-logic can lead people to support the Greens is kind of funny but mostly disappointing.

Anyway, if anyone wants to understand the basic dishonesty inherent in the Green Party... this is Tim Kaine's quote when asked about abortion in the second debate;
"We support the constitutional right of American women to consult their own conscience, their own supportive partner, their own minister, but then make their own decision about pregnancy. That’s something we trust American women to do that."

Jill Stein then replied on twitter;
"Tim Kaine and Mike Pence: Two men arguing over whether women have the right to control their own bodies."

On hearing a man say that it is up to a woman to decide for herself, Stein complained that he should let a woman decide for herself. Whether Stein did this because she isn't able to listen to a whole sentence from another person, or because she's dishonest and says whatever she thinks will fire up her base, I don't know. Either way it is amazing that people are voting for her.

I mean, I don't think much of libertarianism, but Johnson has done good work bringing the party towards a mainstream position where you can kind of see it one day forming a platform that might be capable of governing. Sure his foreign policy ignorance is embarrassing for a grown adult, let alone a presidential candidate, but he isn't actually going to win. Right now he works as a guide to where right wing politics could and probably should go.

But Stein doesn't have that. It isn't the Democrats but without the special interests/unions/neo-liberalism or anything like that. It's just the positions of the Democrats, with a heaping dose of flying rodent gak lunacy poured on. Think the Democrats don't go far enough in fighting climate change, well the Greens are gonna dismantle a third of US energy production tomorrow!

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Amazing to see so many answers that show the stockholm syndrome effect the corporates have brainwashed so many with that we have just two choices. America needs more than that, and no, I did not throw my vote away, that is merely Dem party claptrap as they have tried to make people via fear and fear alone.

Okay, Rage Against The Machine, tone down the high school-level revolutionary talk there before you get hurt. There is a two-party system in the US because we have (and have had) a winner-takes-all system and there is no second place prize. The plurality system keeps parties that can't get votes from doing anything meaningful other than giving internet posters a reason to spout their platitudes. We also use single-member districts, which reinforces the plurality system because a party that gains, say 30% of the votes, doesn't get 30% of the representation in Congress; the party that got plurality does. This again incentivizes parties to gain as many votes as possible by trying to broadly appeal to a large number of people. Even if a third part were to become more popular, they would just start to gulp up voters from the party they were effectively trying to replace and the cycle would start all over again, settling everything back into a two-party system.

Orange Hitler is another such piece of propaganda, and I voted my conscience.

Unlike some people, I'm not going to shame you for voting your conscience. You do you and don't let anyone stop you.

But still vote LOTE and you still get evil. It will not change until people wise up and stop voting for team Red/Blue, which is actually two sides of a single party.

Sure, to a degree that is true. The Democrats and Republicans share more in common that what divides them

But yeah look up what Stockholm syndrome means, and also see how well rigged the system is with the "2-party" coin flip nonsense.

The system isn't "rigged" as much as it's "the way it's been since the ratification of the Constitution."

I am amongst those who want actual change, it ain't happening from inside the red/blue club, they are too bought , too corrupt, too far gone to fix.

I want change as well, but I'm mature enough to understand that it probably isn't going to happen (at least overnight). Personally, I would love to see the United States abandon the electoral college system, especially considering I live in a state that has to give up some of our electoral votes to other states. That means my vote is worth less than someone from the next state over (West Virginia, in my case).

But hey, I know what you who posted think, thanks for your time of puking the pablum at me

There's irony in here somewhere, I can feel it...

And the Federal guidelines for a party to get the recognition and funding happens to be 5% or more, plain an simple. No matter what party that is not part of the insider red/blue paradigm, time to cut the short hairs they have you by people.

That was for you, Ahtman.

 sebster wrote:
Umm, Stockholm Syndrome is pretty well known. If you think dropping it here and asking people to go look it up is gonna give you some kind of credit, you might be punching out of your weight division. Dakka might be a little crazy, but it's well read enough to know concepts that have shown up in Die Hard movies.

I feel like you might be giving a little too much credit to the subforum that once saw a serious argument put forth that blacklisting in hollywood was an obscure thing only known to historians.

 shasolenzabi wrote:
Amazing to see so many answers that show the stockholm syndrome effect the corporates have brainwashed so many with that we have just two choices.

Before you continue on with this discussion please read and understand this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

The two-party system is not the result of brainwashing, it's about the math behind the US electoral system. Talking about how voting for a third-party candidate is going to change the system is just displaying your own lack of understanding of how the system works.

I am amongst those who want actual change, it ain't happening from inside the red/blue club, they are too bought , too corrupt, too far gone to fix.

Recent history rather strongly disagrees with you. Both Sanders and the Tea Party movement managed to get a lot of attention and influence the direction of their respective parties by working within the relevant major party. Meanwhile every random third-party candidate has turned out to be nothing more than the irrelevant lunatic fringe where winning a "we get to appear on the ballot" participation trophy is the goal to dream about. The lesson here is very clear: if you want to accomplish something you join a major party and try to influence their platform and/or win primary elections.

And the Federal guidelines for a party to get the recognition and funding happens to be 5% or more, plain an simple.

Yes, but think about how trivial that funding really is. For example, this article (about the 2012 election, but still a good enough approximation) is talking about the importance of Johnson getting a mere ~$10 million in federal funding. Contrast this with the 2016 fundraising efforts by the major parties: $1.3 billion for Clinton, $800 million for Trump, on top of the money spent by "unaffiliated" groups to influence the election. Average the two out and the funding at stake with the 5% threshold is a mere 1% of the major-party spending on a presidential election.

This is why third parties and their 5% participation trophy are such a joke.

 BigWaaagh wrote:
You're missing the point with the whole tired 'Mother Jones' rhetoric. It's not that there isn't support or desire here for more parties, a lot of us have repeatedly posted that would be a good thing, it's just that if Dr. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are the third party options du jour, then "No thanks!".

That's the problem in the United States, our "other" political parties are mostly full of wackos or extremists. If you're a normal person who wants a career in politics, you either join the most powerful political party that matches your values or you join it's most powerful opposition. Anything else is really a waste of time. Our two party, direct vote system does have the benefit of creating stability by precluding collation governments where a third party can play kingmaker, or spoiler should they decide to take their marbles and go home.

 Ouze wrote:

 sebster wrote:
Umm, Stockholm Syndrome is pretty well known. If you think dropping it here and asking people to go look it up is gonna give you some kind of credit, you might be punching out of your weight division. Dakka might be a little crazy, but it's well read enough to know concepts that have shown up in Die Hard movies.

I feel like you might be giving a little too much credit to the subforum that once saw a serious argument put forth that blacklisting in hollywood was an obscure thing only known to historians.

Thank you for that gem because it definitely brightened my night at work. I had honestly forgot about that thread and how ridiculous it was.