The thing is, there doesn't even have to be an event. There could be zero events in the next month and a poll taken in the beginning of September will still show shifts from one taken today. Time is one of those changing circumstances of yours.Originally Posted by RandBlade
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
1. Having a lead at this point is better than not having a lead at this point. But it's hardly a guarantee of what's to come. 4-5% swings happen pretty frequently from this point onwards (more because of pollsters re-calibrating their polls than people really change their opinions, but that's a separate issue). Clinton is only up about 5% nationally. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...bama-1171.html
1a. The picture is even more ambiguous at the state level. First, a lot of state-level polls are currently conducted by sub-par pollsters. The main organizations are going to start doing those polls in a month or so. Second, Clinton and Trump are effectively tied in most of the swing states (<1%). That includes Ohio, North Carolina, and Florida (click on state for most recent polls, most of which aren't terribly recent: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...llege_map.html).
2. Recent polls in Europe consistently underestimated support for the far right. It's entirely possible we're seeing something similar here. Is that guaranteed? No, because America is slightly different and the pollsters here are better. But it's certainly a reasonable possibility.
3. Every election is unique, but this one is really unique. We have a major candidate who's on record opposing half of his party's platform and fighting a low-level insurgency against most of the party's leaders. It's entirely possible we might see a shift in the composition of both parties' membership. This means assumptions about the population and likely voters can be thrown out of the window. Each polling agency has its own assumptions, and each of those assumptions is equally untestable until election day. Given that polls are not based on the principle of random assignment (and we know that the response rate is systematically biased against people who don't trust the government), the sample is usually going to differ from the underlying population it's supposed to represent. In most elections, that just requires pollsters to weigh the votes of various groups in their sample to better resemble the population of likely voters. THIS CANNOT HAPPEN WHEN YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THE POPULATION LOOKS LIKE.
4. Polls have a margin of error for a reason. It's possible the polls are spot-on. It's possible they're underestimating Clinton's support. It's possible they're underestimating Trump's support. At this point, we just don't know. There haven't been enough reliable polls and it's still too far away from election time. I'm not arguing that Clinton has a less than 51% chance of winning. I'm arguing there's perhaps a 20% chance she loses, but that's a catastrophic 20%. And until the polls show a much larger lead than they do, the real possibility of catastrophe will persist. I'd prefer not to go into election day with a 1 in 5 chance that the international order as we know it will collapse.
Hope is the denial of reality
What happens if Johnson gets certain endorsements? Say Romney, Ryan, or others?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
Not much. If you were going to support Trump and not Johnson, Romney and Ryan endorsing him isn't going to change anything. The media will pick it up if it happens and maybe you'll get a tiny group of people who haven't heard of him a chance to see what he's about and support him but it won't be much. Still every bit helps and if Johnson can get up to 5% that would put Libertarian issues at the forefront. Good times.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
See this is why Trump publicly mocks disabled people. It's because Americans love that kinda thing.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Btw, what do you guys think congress will look like after this election?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
It looks like there will be 49-50 Democratic senators. The House will remain unchanged because it's about as democratic as the Soviet politburo.
Hope is the denial of reality
While most seats are safe we've seen the party that controls the House change multiple times in our lifetime.
Not when one party holds such a lead. If every Republican who won by <10% in 2014 lost, there would still be a Republican majority. The seat that would give the Democrats a majority went Republican by 15.4% in 2014.
https://ballotpedia.org/Margin_of_vi...onal_elections
Hope is the denial of reality
In 1994 Democrats controlled the House.
In 1995 Republicans controlled the House.
2007 It went back to the Democrats.
2011 It went back to the Republicans.
Hardly a comparison to the Soviets.
Yes. There are multiple polls conducted every day, in every state.....but they only reflect what the pollsters ask, and how the people who participate answer. They're neither predictive nor reliable.
The main thing "polls have shown"....is how easily political groups and news organizations can be snookered into paying professional pollsters tons of money, yet still not have an understanding of the electorate.You're right, Fuzzy, polls change. Sometimes they only ask simple questions like "is the country going in the right direction?" without drilling any deeper.
I think if the election were held today Trump could win. There are that many voters fed up with "establishment" politics and policies....that pollsters haven't figured in their surveys...that make it an entirely possible, and plausible outcome.
Instead of looking at parties, look at individual Congressmen. Only about 5% of incumbents lose their elections (the chart below doesn't exclude retiring congressmen, which deflates the rate), a lower rate of turnover than the Soviet politburo.
https://www.opensecrets.org/overview/reelect.php
Hope is the denial of reality
I'm wondering if Trump's candidacy is real....or if it's more like a marketing or branding project?
Doubt it, it might have started this way but I do think he thinks he can win it.
What's the source on the Politburo numbers? (of course, the small size of the Politburo rather taints comparisons)
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
If the people he vetted for VP can be trusted he has no plans to be president, even if he wins. He was willing to put the VP in charge of both foreign and domestic policy.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Starting from the 1950s, at least a third of all members had to resign after each session, and almost no one was allowed to serve more than 3 terms.
Hope is the denial of reality
So that's a pretty meaningless comparison.
Former head of the CIA is saying Trump is an 'unwitting pawn of Putin'.
I honestly can't really begrudge Americans blaming everything that's been going wrong in their country on nefarious, but non-specific, foreign conspiracies.
Everything motherfucker's been doing it to them since at least the 1950s.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Loki, I think people on this forum have had quite enough of so-called "comparisons". Comparisons have been tried before, see for example the HRE, Napoleon, Hitler. They just don't work out. Benghazi
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
In case it's not obvious, I'm not actually claiming the USSR was more democratic than the US; the point is that one element of Congress (reelection rate) would give the Soviet Union a run for its money.
Hope is the denial of reality
That seems accurate to me. He's unwitting in that he's not directly working for Putin, but Trump's success destabilizes the US, which is something Putin is willing to use his resources to bring into fruition.
Hope is the denial of reality
"It would give the Soviet Union a run for its money" is only relevant if the turnover rate in the politburo was noticeably a poor one. If it isn't, it's a moot point.
That's like saying I'm a terrible runner, my poor running would give Usain Bolt a run for his money. The fact I'm a worse runner than Usain Bolt neither confirms nor denies that I am a terrible runner.
I get what you are trying to say, but that Usain Bolt analogy is terrible.
Last edited by Cracky; 08-11-2016 at 02:46 AM.
On the topic of things that would get most normal citizens arrested or at least a visit from the Secret Service: http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37029170
Hope is the denial of reality
Hope is the denial of reality
Do we remember when Clinton was running against Obama and didn't drop out in June? And her Bobby Kennedy comment?
She had to walk that one back...
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
My headcanon for this election is that Donald Trump doesn't want to be President, and is trapped in a Kafka-esque nightmare where nothing he says or does seems to be enough to decisively ruin his campaign.
"I'm a terrible human being", screams Donald, "and a racist. I will do everything in my power to damage America and make the world a worse place"
"Yesssss! This is exactly what we want" his supports yell back.
Later, Donald stares into a mirror and sobs.
A fitting punishment.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Publish that story!! I'll torrent the epub
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
