TRUMP 2016

People on all sides have been canvassing v enthusiastically as well as making phone-calls etc. However, there's a greater opportunity cost to donating time :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

That's how I felt at the last General Election though I didn't simply donate money, I donated time too going door-to-do delivering leaflets.

Do you guys do that sort of thing there or is it all money? Possibly because of stringent spending caps here donating time can be worth more than donating money.

---

I live in a very blue state. Ground game is irrelevant here. I also doubt my argument in favor of Clinton is one that is likely to excite other voters. :o

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

That's a huge waste of money. I've been wrong a lot this election cycle but I would be shocked if Trump doesn't do worse than either McCain or Romney.

---

McCain and Romeny, who I'm pretty sure you were convinced would win.

Pretty sure you've just jinxed the election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RandBlade

That's how I felt at the last General Election though I didn't simply donate money, I donated time too going door-to-do delivering leaflets.

Do you guys do that sort of thing there or is it all money? Possibly because of stringent spending caps here donating time can be worth more than donating money.

---

Donating time is definitely something done over here and is almost certainly more effective than spending money, particularly late in the cycle as part of GOtV efforts. But I imagine Wiggin's time might be more valuable to him than his money.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy

Donating time is definitely something done over here and is almost certainly more effective than spending money, particularly late in the cycle as part of GOtV efforts. But I imagine Wiggin's time might be more valuable to him than his money.

---

That, too. Though money is always nice. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steely Glint

McCain and Romeny, who I'm pretty sure you were convinced would win.

Pretty sure you've just jinxed the election.

---

Didn't know I had that kind of power. ;)

In that case let me make a new prediction. There will be nothing crazy that happens that will prevent Trump from securing the nomination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

Let us say that Trump has a 10% chance of winning - that is far lower chances than I would have given to either McCain or Romney at a similar point in the campaign. Am I willing to save a few bucks in the complacent assumption that he won't win? To me, a low probability risk that has very high costs should receive just as much attention as a higher probability risk with low costs. In most recent presidential campaigns, I have not felt that the outcome of the election could dramatically damage the country, so while I voted I did not feel the need to get involved in any way. In this election, I very much feel that a Trump presidency would be ruinous, so a modest investment against that possibility seems prudent, no?

---

Since you bring up percentages what do you think the % chance of your donation will impact the final results from a loss to a win. That's where your real % should be. If it is less than 1/10,000 you're being rather foolish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

Since you bring up percentages what do you think the % chance of your donation will impact the final results from a loss to a win. That's where your real % should be. If it is less than 1/10,000 you're being rather foolish.

---

I prefer to think about this as a game theory problem with tens of millions of politically engaged Americans. We could all be free riders, theoretically, but then money will get allocated by the true partisans rather than the reasonable majority, which is a losing proposition. It's a bit of a prisoner's dilemma but since we live in society that continually repeats the 'game', there is incentive to get it right. Essentially, I would give money because I think everyone else who's reasonable should give money. Even if my individual donation (or my individual vote) won't matter, the aggregate actions of people like me do matter.

There's no reason to think your actions will have any impact on those other people though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

There's no reason to think your actions will have any impact on those other people though.

---

In a single turn of the game, you're correct. But let's imagine that everyone else doesn't fund the reasonable candidate this time around, and the lack of funds leads to a narrow loss to the nutjob. The next time the game is played, people will change their behavior. In fact, because we're capable of projecting into the future, they'll change their behavior for the first game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiggin

In a single turn of the game, you're correct. But let's imagine that everyone else doesn't fund the reasonable candidate this time around, and the lack of funds leads to a narrow loss to the nutjob. The next time the game is played, people will change their behavior. In fact, because we're capable of projecting into the future, they'll change their behavior for the first game.

---

You still have no influence over other players, whether in this round or the next. Let's say your actions increase Clinton's margin of victory ever so slightly. That will have either no impact on other people or might even encourage them to donate less next time around because their expectation of a future nutjob's likelihood of victory will decrease.

It's amazing that "establishment" Republicans are willing to support/endorse Trump, even after they lambasted him for almost a year. :rolleyes: Then the chairman of the RNC said it's time to rally around the presumptive nominee and unite the party....but both Bushes, McCain, and Romney are skipping the convention, and even Speaker Ryan can't bring himself to endorse Trump.

Is anyone placing bets on who he'll pick for his VP?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lewkowski

I guess I'll be pushing the button for Gary Johnson. I don't actually support all of his positions (particularly his stance on Iran) but maybe if enough people vote Libertarian in a protest vote over Trump we might shift the party. Meh, fools dream really, the next generation of babies want government to take care of them from cradle to grave. Very depressing election cycle.

---

I think it'd be great if the GOP 'shifted'....away from its social/cultural/religious extremes and militaristic bend. That puts Johnson in a good position to pick up lots of voters, including Independents and Democrats that don't like Hillary, as well as Republican that don't like Trump. But I doubt that will change the GOP much, at least not this election cycle.

You can keep telling yourself our ruin is from lib'ruls wanting teh gummint to take care of people from cradle to grave, but that's just your blind partisanship talking. And it prevents you from seeing the ruin caused by militant neo-cons, white Christian zealots, and crony capitalists within the GOP. :bored:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

It's amazing that "establishment" Republicans are willing to support/endorse Trump, even after they lambasted him for almost a year. :rolleyes: Then the chairman of the RNC said it's time to rally around the presumptive nominee and unite the party....but both Bushes, McCain, and Romney are skipping the convention, and even Speaker Ryan can't bring himself to endorse Trump.

Is anyone placing bets on who he'll pick for his VP?

---

The RNC really doesn't have a choice. Though good on Bush, McCain, Romney and hopefully Ryan. Trump is a colossal joke, the people who voted for him need a sharp reality check and I'm hoping Libertarian party getting 5% of the vote and Clinton taking 40 states is the message. Don't vote for crazy.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-after-ted-c/

The Libertarian convention won't get the same media coverage (ie total saturation). Assuming he wins the Libertarian nomination....he should be on the Presidential Debate stage alongside the (R) and (D) candidates. But the only way that will happen is if social media forces demand it.

It's not like "the press", let alone cable news networks, have done such a great job of introducing third party political candidates so far. :rolleyes:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...orters-believe

The new Republican Party.

Took long enough but at last the arrogant Republican Elite (aka Lewk et al) must actually look at the majority of thier constituency and admit they have been courting scumbags all along.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Being

Took long enough but at last the arrogant Republican Elite (aka Lewk et al) must actually look at the majority of thier constituency and admit they have been courting scumbags all along.

---

Courting is one thing, its the encouraging and fostering it they shouldn't have done. If you ask me, at least.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...orters-believe

The new Republican Party.

---

Considering the party has about 50% support overall, Trump numbers aside I finde these statistics shockingly high:








I have to admit though, the global warming hoax figures are better than I had feared (especially after thse figures :bulb: )

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Considering the party has about 50% support overall, Trump numbers aside I finde these statistics shockingly high:

---

There is a lady who thinks Obama is a gay prostitute and that the middle east is influencing our school text books so they can buy them. This same lady is about to end up on the board that decides what goes into text books for Texas, and thus most of the US, because voters want her in that position.

An alarming number of regular voters are unhinged lunatics. Primary supporters are no better. The average citizen doesn't vote, so we end up with shit like what you're seeing.

Flixy, closer to 40% overall (about a third of independents are closet Republicans).

http://content.gallup.com/origin/gal...kuxgsz2csq.png

gutted i won't be able to use my "donald the elphant packed his bags and said goodbye to the caucus" joke now

Those charts are horribly editorialized. Look how they pick and change the metrics for each chart to fit their narrative, and completely ignore the statistics for democratic candidates.

Might as well be straight making shit up at this point.

Logic like that is part of the reason the political system is broken. Instead of examining real problems on one's own side of the political spectrum, allege an elaborate conspiracy instead. Makes it easier to sleep at night I suppose.

It's a story comparing Trump to other Republican candidates. :bulb: And the story does mention that Democrats have similar issues (not nearly to the same level), but that this story isn't about them.

That's only one thing I pointed out, and it's hardly alleging an elaborate conspiracy when a study that shows Hillary supporters believe Sandy Hook was a hoax is spun to make it look like it's actually Trump supporters that believe that.

This isn't a story comparing Republican candidates, it's a carefully manipulated retelling of a story comparing all candidates (the original study)

http://view2.fdu.edu/publicmind/2016/160504/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cracky

it's hardly alleging an elaborate conspiracy when a study that shows Hillary supporters believe Sandy Hook was a hoax is spun to make it look like it's actually Trump supporters that believe that.

---

From your own link, its 23/21 for Clinton/Trump. Its also the only question where the results are even remotely close.
Not exactly a flattering picture.

The numbers are 23% vs. 21% for that conspiracy. Not exactly groundbreaking. The first table is more telling. 64% of Clinton supporters didn't believe in any of the conspiracy theorists compared to 30% Trump supporters. 17% of Clinton supporters believed in more than 1 conspiracy theory vs. 44% of Trump supporters. So who's deliberately misinterpreting data?

I'm not unable of reading the contents of a link I posted myself. And I can clearly see it's not a flattering picture, but to claim that article isn't misrepresenting data when it throws away half the data set and changes metrics between "definitely true" and "definitely true+possibly true" is ludicrous.

I'm not a big fan of Trump's, but I'm sick and tired of this whole "Trump is literally Hitler" shit that's flying around.

So your own link shows that Republican voters are much more likely to believe in conspiracy theories. Washington Post runs a piece discussing how Republican voters are likely to believe conspiracy theories. And yet you cry foul over the article.

No, he just has the support of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, KKK, conspiracy theorists, and Putin, and wants to systematically dismantle the Constitution.