Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 30, 2016, 03:27:32 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1086
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: WA/NE-Emerson (pre-debate): Clinton +6 in WA, Trump +27 in NE on: September 29, 2016, 08:15:13 pm
Estacada was a super-narrow Obama win in 2012.

I guess that doesn't surprise me, really. Though I haven't been back that way for quite a while, if it hasn't changed too much, I'd expect that to be one of the few places in the Portland metro area to swing significantly towards Trump this cycle. What do you all think?

I think there's a good chance.  Very low rates of college education but not really low-income.  Very strong area for Trump in the primary, and a 2-to-1 win for Sanders.  Besides the population not being particularly old, it seems like a relatively good area for a Trump swing.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: WA/NE-Emerson (pre-debate): Clinton +6 in WA, Trump +27 in NE on: September 29, 2016, 07:55:20 pm
I look forward to moving back home to Clackamas County and trying to do my part in turning it from its stubbornly Republican (compared to Washington and Multnomah) ways.

Clackamas is a trip, and  although I still don't feel like I have a total grasp on it, you have this weird scene where one of the wealthiest cities in Oregon Lake Oswego becoming heavily Democratic in '08 and '12, similar to trends in places like Gladstone and West Linn, and also old blue collar working-class places like Oregon City and Milwaukie....

Even if you adjust out the "rural" parts of the county much of the Republican base these days is actually in fast growing expensive exurban communities like Happy Valley and Damascus, and the Uninc areas around them....

Thinking its more like upper-middle class types that want "more house" and longer commute, since it doesn't appear that Blue Collar types are abandoning the Dem Party in Clack. and there has been Dem growth in wealthy and upper-middle class cities closer to the City.

Thoughts???

Oh, I certainly agree. It's almost like Clark County in that way, I think.

That being said, I feel like Happy Valley has become a little more like Lake Oswego over the past 10 years or so--granola wealthy gradually replacing the typical suburban wealthy.

Do you know how Estacada votes? I lived in Carver for several years (now part of Damascus, but sort of its own entity), and the stretch along 212/224 from 82nd drive all the way out to Estacada always struck me as a pretty typically blue collar Republican stronghold. But this was about 10 years ago now. And the area along Sunnyside and near Clackamas High School just north of there is more suburban-feeling... I dunno, the whole northwestern (populated) part of Clackamas County feels like a mix of very, very different classes, styles, etc.

Estacada was a super-narrow Obama win in 2012.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Radical libertarians now have a choice for President, and guess who it is on: September 29, 2016, 04:28:34 pm


http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/29/radical-libertarians-now-have-a-write-in
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: WA/NE-Emerson (pre-debate): Clinton +6 in WA, Trump +27 in NE on: September 29, 2016, 02:37:42 pm
But since it doesn't appear you know what you're talking about, I'll forgive you for your unnecessary condescension.

Okay, good luck with your thread.  Hope it brings you some enjoyment.

I don't even know what you're trying to say, that I tried to kick you out of the thread?  Because no, I'd welcome a reply.

Otherwise, idk, that's some pretty vague passive-aggression you have going there.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: WA/NE-Emerson (pre-debate): Clinton +6 in WA, Trump +27 in NE on: September 29, 2016, 01:09:41 pm
Portland metro growth doesn't account for most of Oregon's swing.

No, I didn't say that.  Almost nothing to do with population growth.  But everything to do with the size of Portland's vote and the degree to which it goes Democrat.  Perhaps stated more clearly, Democrats are running up much larger margins in the Portland metro area than they did 20 years ago, too much for the rest of the state to make up for.

Look at Multnomah county, the most urban county in the state and the highest raw turnout.  It's gone from voting for Clinton in the high 50% range to Obama in the high 70% range.

Same for Lane county, which is dominated by Eugene.  Gore won it +11, Obama won it +27 and +23.  There are pockets of rural Oregon that went about 5 points more for Obama than Bush, but for the most part, rural Oregon is just as Republican as it was 20 years ago.

And whatever definition you're using for "non-metro" seems likely broken.  The next biggest areas of D gains (behind urban Portland) in Oregon are Eugene and the Portland suburbs/exurbs, like Beaverton, Hillsboro, Wilsonville, etc.  Since it appears you don't live here, I'll forgive you for not understanding how ridiculous it would be to define Eugene or Hillsboro as non-metro areas.

A few things:

1. I wasn't talking about population growth, nor was I taking you to mean population growth.  I was talking about growth in votes.  I realize just using "growth" in the first sentence didn't specify which sort of growth, but everything I talked about after that was growth in vote count, and was explicitly identified as such.

2. You wrote, "Portland metro is just too big vs the rest of the state now."  You apparently meant that the Democratic vote shares are just too big vs. the rest of the state now, but that's not what you wrote.

3. I started the post referring to the Portland metro.  Why would you think my subsequent references to "Metro" would include Eugene?  I also have no idea why you think I excluded Beaverton, Hillsboro, and Wilsonville.  The numbers I cited for "Metro Portland" were the counties of Multnomah, Washington, and Clackamas.  Also, while Wilsonville itself has swung pretty D, Clackamas overall has been a drag on Democratic margins in the state, considering it's much more Republican than state average and has had a smaller swing than state average (D+4.95), mostly due to population growth in the county's more conservative areas.

But since it doesn't appear you know what you're talking about, I'll forgive you for your unnecessary condescension.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: BREAKING NEWS!!!! Jill Stein is dumb as a rock on: September 29, 2016, 12:10:32 pm
This seems like a weak criticism.  They often are, but why does a "world leader" have to be a head of state?  Politicians and activists get called "leaders" all the time.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: WA/NE-Emerson (pre-debate): Clinton +6 in WA, Trump +27 in NE on: September 29, 2016, 05:08:34 am
If WA is so close(5.8% margins). it could be #battlegroundOregon as I said before? Wink

I think the days of Oregon being only 0-2 points left of national margin  (Bush '00 and '04) are long gone.  Portland metro is just too big vs the rest of the state now.

Even with a absolute best case scenario for Trump (winning +5 nationally), my guess is he still loses OR by 2-3 points.

If Trump wins a squeaker nationally, I think OR will still be Clinton +6 to +8.  100% vote by mail here helps keep that dominant Portland D turnout up in all scenarios.

Portland metro growth doesn't account for most of Oregon's swing.  The Portland metro counties went from 55.8% of the state's votes in 2004 to 57.0% in 2012.  Oregon voted D+4.2 in 2004.  If you simply account for the vote growth of the Metro area versus the rest of the state, without any change in voting patterns within either portion, Oregon would have voted only D+4.5 in 2012.  It voted D+12.1, so obviously an increasingly Metro-heavy electorate is nowhere near the main factor.

Instead, the shift was because voters statewide became more Democratic.  Non-metro Oregon moved from R+9.2 in 2004 to R+3.2 in 2012, for a swing of D+6.0.  Metro Oregon moved from D+21.9 to D+31.3, for a swing of D+9.5.  It was a change in what the votes were, not where the votes came from, that drove Oregon's shift toward the Democrats.

Also, I know you weren't claiming otherwise, but Oregon has voted entirely vote-by-mail since 1999, before the close 2000 and 2004 elections.
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: HuffPo: Trump on Genetically-Endowed Human Superiority on: September 29, 2016, 04:50:06 am
Belief in this pseudo-science led to some of the greatest horrors of the early 20th century - justifying everything from forced sterilization of poor people in America to the mass genocide of millions of Jews (among other "undesirables") in Europe. See, this is what happens when you don't properly educate a society on the basis of modern science, but rather let them run around making up their own truths, whether it's that races are anything more than social constructs based on skin pigmentation or that "Intelligent" Design is somehow of equal validity with Natural Selection.

Not venturing into any specific issue here, but this isn't true.  There are obviously some genetic correlates with race that go beyond skin pigmentation.  It's not some vast pseudoscientific conspiracy that blacks respond differently to hypertension drugs than other groups, for instance.  There is obviously much greater variation between individuals than between racial groups on most things, and we may delineate racial groups in a way that doesn't represent genetic delineations well, but fundamentally what you're claiming here is not supported by current scientific evidence.
9  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: WA/NE-Emerson (pre-debate): Clinton +6 in WA, Trump +27 in NE on: September 28, 2016, 05:15:07 pm
The Washington Senate result is 48-41 Murary.  The primary was about 59-36, so...no.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which things in Debate #1 hurt Trump the most? on: September 28, 2016, 09:18:59 am
He should have been on the attack more. He did well when he tied his taxes to Clinton's emails, but seemed to back down in every argument after that.

So, according to you, his only fault was not attacking Clinton more. Not anything listed by the OP. Well, I guess that tells everyone here enough about yourself.

All of those gaffes arose because he allowed Clinton to frame the debate, when he ought to have brushed off her attacks and focused on issues of substance, on which she is consistently incompetent. It is asinine that the moderator focused on whether or not a private citizen was sincere in his prescient opposition to the invasion of Iraq, rather than asking the individual who authorized the attack and continued to shill for it for a subsequent ten years. Given even a modicum of preparation Trump ought to have been able to flip all of these attacks against his opponent, but fell into the trap of being on the defensive.

That's such a weird way of framing that.  You're phrasing that like this "private citizen" isn't one of two major-party Presidential candidates, and that it's some sort of irrelevant personal opinion, as opposed to an issue that candidate has used to draw a contrast on judgment.  Trump, not Clinton, is using that as an argument.  Asking Trump this question is having him clarify the logic of his argument (something he hasn't really done to my knowledge); asking Clinton your proposed question would basically be "tell us again how you were wrong" (something she has done, even if you think it was done inadequately).

And besides that, accepting mencken's framing implicitly accepts that Trump did oppose the war in Iraq "presciently", and the best evidence he can mount for that is that Sean Hannity will totally tell you that they had phone calls a couple of times about it.

Or, you know, the moderator could have done his homework.

1. That really doesn't address the points I made.

2. This appears to be a video of Trump where the main argument Trump is presenting is that Bush should make a decision.  I don't see Trump expressing personal ambivalence, let alone opposition.  The only "ambivalence" seems to be him stating "maybe Bush shouldn't do it yet" when discussing his deference to Bush's decision-making process.  This doesn't contradict his "yes I guess" response to an Iraq War question.  It's consistent with him supporting the War (somewhat apathetically perhaps), but saying that he respects Bush's decision-making process.  I don't see what in Holt's question is unreasonable considering these facts taken together.
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Which things in Debate #1 hurt Trump the most? on: September 28, 2016, 08:41:41 am
He should have been on the attack more. He did well when he tied his taxes to Clinton's emails, but seemed to back down in every argument after that.

So, according to you, his only fault was not attacking Clinton more. Not anything listed by the OP. Well, I guess that tells everyone here enough about yourself.

All of those gaffes arose because he allowed Clinton to frame the debate, when he ought to have brushed off her attacks and focused on issues of substance, on which she is consistently incompetent. It is asinine that the moderator focused on whether or not a private citizen was sincere in his prescient opposition to the invasion of Iraq, rather than asking the individual who authorized the attack and continued to shill for it for a subsequent ten years. Given even a modicum of preparation Trump ought to have been able to flip all of these attacks against his opponent, but fell into the trap of being on the defensive.

That's such a weird way of framing that.  You're phrasing that like this "private citizen" isn't one of two major-party Presidential candidates, and that it's some sort of irrelevant personal opinion, as opposed to an issue that candidate has used to draw a contrast on judgment.  Trump, not Clinton, is using that as an argument.  Asking Trump this question is having him clarify the logic of his argument (something he hasn't really done to my knowledge); asking Clinton your proposed question would basically be "tell us again how you were wrong" (something she has done, even if you think it was done inadequately).
12  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Nate Cohn vs. Nate Silver on: September 28, 2016, 07:27:41 am
I like Cohn, but I'm curious to know your deep, surely methodology-based reasoning on this one.

That he hasn't been basically completely full of sh!t this election season? I made this because he got in a recent Twitter feud with Silver.

I don't think Silver has been totally full of crap this election season.  He blew analyzing the primary, but he's been pretty forthright about why and how he's changed his methodology.  I mean, look at the difference in how FiveThirtyEight and the Upshot's General election models treat uncertainty and volatility.  Silver actually seems to have done a solid job of that, while I'll say Cohn and a few others were a bit too 2008/2012 in terms of including uncertainty in their evaluation.  I didn't really watch Cohn during the primary season so I can't evaluate how he handled it vs. Silver.  But I think they're both worth reading and considering, and as much as I disagreed with Silver throughout the primary and think he may have been too committed to his theories, I'm not willing to blackball him, especially based on how reasonably he seems to have evaluated his mistakes.
13  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Washington '15: The Calm Before the Drizzle on: September 28, 2016, 06:50:40 am
The legislative map could be pretty crazy, though.  There are so many Seattle-area LDs that are growing above state average, and not many growing far enough below state average to "absorb" those new registrants from neighboring high-growth areas.  There could be some fun, weird shifting.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hey look who started #TrumpWon! on: September 28, 2016, 06:47:35 am
It's amazing how many journalists retweeted this without ever bothering to source it.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Utah - Salt Lake City Tribune/Hinkley/Dan Jones: Trump +9 on: September 26, 2016, 06:50:41 pm
Seems to be entered in wrong on the polls page... Says a tie.

It's not wrong.  It's a tie between Trump and "Other."  That's just how the software handles counting third parties.
16  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Nate Cohn vs. Nate Silver on: September 26, 2016, 04:31:38 pm
I like Cohn, but I'm curious to know your deep, surely methodology-based reasoning on this one.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: PA-Morning Call: Clinton +3 on: September 25, 2016, 06:56:07 pm
So she's up 5 nationally and only winning Pennsylvania by 2??
she's up 2, maybe 3

Indeed. 

Plus, one Pennsylvania poll is no reason to freak out about a gap between the national polls and state polls.  The national polls, in aggregate, effectively have a small margin of error.  But this poll is +/-5%, so even if it's perfectly sampled, the MoE alone can account for Clinton being 5% higher or lower.  There definitely appears to be a little difference between the swing state and national polls this year, but this one poll being "off" isn't much evidence either way.
18  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: Utah - Salt Lake City Tribune/Hinkley/Dan Jones: Trump +9 on: September 25, 2016, 01:09:09 pm
Wish we had the poll PDF, because it would be awesome if this poll actually has a higher share for "Other" than either Clinton or Trump.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Dave's Mock Election 2016 is now open!!! on: September 25, 2016, 01:07:03 pm
I voted and enabled the option to publicly show my support, but I'm not getting that little sign under my avatar. Frustrating.
You have to do so both at the mock election and in your profile.  The one at the mock election does it for that election only.  The one in your profile does it for all elections.

You also have to make sure your Atlas account is linked to your forum account.
20  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Shooting in Burlington, WA leaves four dead, one injured on: September 25, 2016, 08:20:33 am
Quote from: komonews.com
Law enforcement sources tell KOMO 4 that the suspect's name is Arcan Cetin.
http://komonews.com/news/local/sheriffs-office-person-of-interest-arrested-in-cascade-mall-shooting

Quote from: @ArcanCetin
We win I vote for Hillary Clinton
https://twitter.com/ArcanCetin/status/556955812896444416

Quote from: @ArcanCetin
Country is for Republicans and confused Democrats.

Like someone said in the comments, that might be in reference to country music.

I'm not sure I'd infer anything here.  His friends apparently described him as a "conservative" from ROTC.  He also voted a Republican ballot in the May presidential primary (that hasn't been reported in the media yet, but it's public record).  More than anything, his Twitter feed seems pretty incoherent, so I wouldn't read into it much.

He also has a history of minor-league history of domestic violence arrests and weird behavior toward women.  An ex-girlfriend apparently used to work at the Macy's where he opened fire, as well.  It seems like there's a good chance there were no higher principles involved in this.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Does Gennifer Flowers at Monday's debate hurt Hillary or Trump more? on: September 25, 2016, 08:01:56 am
Pat Ward ‏@WardDPatrick  51m
Gennifer Flowers will not be at the debate per @johnrobertsFox
22  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Hey, Santander: come and play! on: September 25, 2016, 04:16:30 am
Why are we asking people who know a lot about literature whether Walter Mitty is a well-known reference?  Shouldn't you be asking us ignoramuses?
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Does Gennifer Flowers at Monday's debate hurt Hillary or Trump more? on: September 25, 2016, 03:09:43 am

Who is going to remember her? The younger generation certainly won't know who she is. It's old news and water under the bridge.

Boring.

Yawn.



to Age 40+ voters : old news, boring.

to millennial voters: oh! I didn't know it! shocking!

You think that millennial voters don't know that Bill Clinton had affairs...?
24  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: WV: Returning Family Finds Their Dog Gutted and Butchered on: September 24, 2016, 12:59:01 pm
I guess there are points here where we just simply would disagree.  Sadism??  The dictionary definition says "the tendency to derive pleasure, especially sexual gratification, from inflicting pain, suffering or humiliation on others (in general use: deliberate cruelty)."  Could you get that definition to describe the responses in this thread?  I suppose.  However, I'd argue that definition strongly hints at enjoying the pain of innocents, and society deciding someone has shown such an utter disregard for life that the person no longer deserves such a fundamental gift as human existence because of what he or she has done isn't exactly "sadism."  I'm not an avid death penalty proponent and certainly have my doubts about its effectiveness, but I can't stand arguments that originate from even a shred of sympathy for the offender/judging of those who are outraged by the crime.

I don't think the definition of sadism hints at inflicting pain on innocents.  I think it's all about enjoying inflicting pain.  And while this may not be pain inflicted on innocents, it's unnecessary pain not merely intended to restrain or deter.  It's done because it's either pleasurably cathartic, which is absolutely sadistic, or because "they deserve it," which we can discuss separately, but which I basically think is incoherent feeling-logic we have for evolutionary purposes.

I don't think either are particularly good things, and definitely shouldn't be celebrated like they often are.

This was a monstrous act with deliberate cruelty upward a defenseless, totally innocent creature, a creature that holds immense sentimental value for the family it was a part of, no doubt.  Someone capable of this should be off the streets ASAP (jail, of course), but if something were to "happen" to him or her in the meantime, would I feel bad?  Nope, and if that makes me a sadist, whatever!

Not what I'm saying, and I doubt it's what anyone is saying.  I imagine that the person in question is a psychopath.  In most cases, I think a binary approach to empathy is dumb.  Of all the groups I think it makes sense to have a binary approach to empathy, it's probably psychopaths.  But there is a difference between not feeling much empathy for suffering, and thinking it's morally laudable to inflict that suffering for no concrete purpose.

I think Antonio may be arguing that socially-acceptable forms of sadism, shaming, moralistic cruelty, etc., are more troubling -- mostly because they're socially acceptable, not because they're more screwed up than psychopathy.  There's some validity to that argument.

That's not bleeding-heart -- that's a recognition that we evolved the ready capacity to be cruel moralists, and that sometimes manifests in screwed up ways.
25  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: WV: Returning Family Finds Their Dog Gutted and Butchered on: September 24, 2016, 12:54:48 am
At this point, I'm more disgusted by the reactions to this thread than I was at the news itself.

This is an ABSURD thing to say, no matter what highly-thought-out, unbudging "moral" compass you think makes you above the outrage to this story.

I don't think he's arguing that outrage and moral repulsion are unreasonable reactions here.  I think he's arguing that sadism is a troubling, unhealthy way of manifesting outrage and moral repulsion.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 1086


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines