Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 04, 2016, 01:26:51 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Election 2016 predictions are now open!.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 179
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Nevada potentially could recount on: December 03, 2016, 06:29:41 pm
Since evergreen doesn't want to engage, I will: I don't post on Bad Atlas very often but I lurk and I find this new take of yours to be very irritating because it's totally disingenuous. Considering that Trump is a fascist who has shown little regard for the Constitution, human rights and racial minorities, is it really a mystery that Democrats would want to delegitimize his election?

I'm not sure what "logic" or "reason" would dictate here. Am I supposed to say "ah yes, democracy worked as intended because the interests of the public were made clear at the ballot box,"? The public voted against me in a very personal manner and also voted for a scumbag who is a threat to democracy, liberalism, freedom, tolerance etc. This is what Trump hath wrought and he could mend these attitudes but you cannot run a campaign like he ran over the past two years and expect anyone to respect him. He has destroyed democratic mechanisms which were already crumbling and there's no turning back now. The Rubicon has been crossed and the goal is to resist this Fascist.

To be blunt, no, I don't particularly care whether or not the public legitimately or illegitimately elected a fascist to be President of the United States. Intellectually, the outcome appears to be legitimate to me but my reaction would be the same: do everything in my power to ensure that Trump fails and fails miserably in his quest to plunder, loot and pillage from the American people, and in his quest to turn America into a disturbing Apartheid state. "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice".

How does any of that mean my argument disingenuous?

Even assuming that I was doing more than getting Evergreen to specify whether she actually thought it was a sham election, or is just arguing that it's OK to be disingenuous about the results for political purposes...how would that make my argument disingenuous?  Do you think my argument is somehow predicated on me feigning belief that Donald Trump isn't toxic to democratic institutions, and at heart an authoritarian bully jerk?  Let me be clear: I absolutely think he is both of those things.  If you think otherwise, you haven't been paying attention to my posts over the last few months.

What is disingenuous is your apparent belief that my argument is based on "respecting" Trump, or opposing efforts to "resist" him, or that "extremism" is inherently wrong.  I have never made any of those arguments.  If you are addressing bad arguments that other people made -- I'm not going to defend those.  The "let's give Trump a chance!" school of thought is pollyannaish idiocy.  I am prepared to argue that democratic institutions and pluralism aren't so utterly destroyed it's a good idea to subject chaotic attempts at power-plays and mass-lying.  If you want to have a conversation about why we disagree about this, fine, but calling my argument "disingenuous" when you really just mean "I disagree" is...well...super disingenuous.

I don't totally get your "logic" and "reason" comments.   Maybe I'm wrong, but I get the impression that you're still annoyed from the time I argued that it wasn't sufficient to dismiss an argument or truth proposition just because it's often posed by people you feel are hostile to your personal identity or set of values.  If that's the case, I think you're failing to see why I think that's so important.  It's not because I think logic and truth are some ultimate ideal, and we should blare socially problematic truths from loudspeakers because THE TRUTH!11.  It's because I think tribalistic moralism can be extremely goddamn dangerous, and is a big part of why the vast majority of human history has involved more homicide, suffering, and oppression than the current day.  I'm willing to discuss why I believe that, but don't call my argument "disingenuous" on the presumption that I don't think about this stuff.

And, finally, if you were arguing it was disingenuous because I knew Evergreen doesn't actually believe there was systemic tampering: apparently she does.

It is disingenuous because it ignores the context in which these claims are being made. These are abnormal circumstances and, implicit to your critique is a belief in proceduralism that doesn't hold water at this point. I think you're smart so I assume that you understand the context and that you're informed by the constant barrage of writing about Trump's authoritarian tendencies, how we should take autocrats' statements seriously etc. If you understand these things, there's nothing surprising about the loss of confidence in proceduralism and there's no reason to think that it is an expression of "tribalism" so much as it is an attempt of "self-protection" and political strategy.

Then there's the shady and disturbing aspects in which this election took place, with clear and present Russian interference in the election and the FBI violating the Hatch Act to give Trump an edge. This might not be sufficient to have evidence of mass election tampering but it is sufficient to give people concern about the validity of the election results, particularly when the belief/faith in procedural democracy no longer makes much sense.

As far as my "logic and reason" claims, yes, I am still irritated about past statements you've made. Looking back on our past discussion on racial pseudo-science, it appears that you underestimated the threat of this work and your fidelity to the arguments of people like Sam Harris or Haidt against "tribal morality" trumped your recognition of the threat of fascism, white supremacy etc. There's nothing tribal about attempting to inject a concern for broad social consequences, ethics and philosophy into arguments that take place within social science. Social scientists ought to be concerned about the effects of their arguments and the ethical implications of their publications. Because there are no real "truths" within the discipline, just expressions of tendencies that are contingent upon context and circumstance, there must be an emphasis on values within any social scientific discipline and an attempt to be transparent about the values that shape one's work. This, of course, is just an opinion of mine and you can disagree but I'm not going to lie and make the argument that our past discussions do not inform my tone here.

In truth, I view people like Sam Harris, Haidt and the like to be as dangerous as their opponents. This idea that "pluralism of belief" is a value is rotten at its core and the failure to defend the right of associations to exclude people on the basis of belief is part and parcel of the total inability of our public institutions to defend themselves against the spread of fascism. The defense of "free speech" that attacked censure rather than censorship also played no small role in allowing fascism to rise in its importance. All in all, I hope that this election makes you reflect upon this as it has made me reflect upon my commitment to "liberal freedoms" and proceduralism (my conclusion is that I underestimated the importance of these things and I feel ashamed about this). I find myself agreeing with critiques of SJWism more now than I used to as I also find myself feeling more irritated at the naive fools who believe that it makes sense to give fascists a platform in the public square.

edit: forgot to address your claim about the strategic validity of recounts. I agree that there probably isn't strategic validity here and I think that my irritation stems from, perhaps, the lack of recognition that this is inevitable or highly likely. Making these arguments doesn't seem to serve any particular purpose at this point (democracy is pretty tarnished now, I think, and there's little trust in our institutions; this is what we'd expect to occur) and it becomes hard to determine the intent of the argument. It seems to run roughshod over the legitimate and real concerns that racial minorities have. Now, it appears that I am mistaken but I wanted to make this clear for the sake of being transparent.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Monkey Cage: Donald Trump did not win 34% of Latino vote in Texas. on: December 03, 2016, 05:41:12 pm
The argument that the total number of votes Clinton received in heavy Latino districts exceed that of Obama 2012 means that the share of the Latino vote for Clinton in TX must be higher misses several key facts.

1) Total eligible voters in TX increased 8.8% from 2012 to 2016
2) Turnout in 2016 is higher (51.6%) than 2012 (49.2)

It is also possible and in fact likely that the share of the Latino vote in TX was higher in 2016 than in 2012.  So it is totally possible for the Clinton share of the Latino vote in TX decreased from Obama 2012 while the total number of Latino votes increased from 2012 Obama.

That's obviously a possibility but the data doesn't really point to this!
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Monkey Cage: Donald Trump did not win 34% of Latino vote in Texas. on: December 03, 2016, 05:32:19 pm
Yes, of course, but I wouldn't underestimate the difficult of gathering such a large data set; this is a very labor-intensive, time-intensive process and I know because I've conducted studies myself. It took me a very long time to gather the data. I'm mostly happy that someone did this.
"Francisco I. Pedraza is assistant professor of political science and public policy at the University of California at Riverside. Bryan Wilcox-Archuleta is a political science PhD student at the University of California at Los Angeles. Additional graphs are available."

Pedraza has a PhD from University of Washington and Wilcox-Archuleta is a doctoral candidate at UCLA. UW and UCLA are reputable schools. This is in their field of supposed expertise. Their article is crap.

Are you familiar with the expression "soft bigotry of low expectations"?

Uh, this isn't an academic publication, it is a study for an organization that's probably a side-project for these people.

Unless you have a critique of the estimation itself, what you're doing is nitpicky and childish. I fail to see how their categorization of counties matters. It's totally irrelevant to the goal of this study, which is to estimate how Latinos in Texas voted in 2016.

Further, unless you're a social scientist, this sort of criticism smacks of a dilettante perspective. It's actually very difficult to gather precinct data for many localities, which probably explains the, as you described it, "truncated" nature of the data. Maybe they didn't use Travis County data because, as everyone knows, Travis County Latino neighborhoods are gentrifying/morphing at a rapid clip. Have you thought about emailing the people who conducted the study to ask them about their decisions/choices? This might literally boil down to "we used this population cut-off to categorize a county" and "we could not match this Census data to these precincts" or "we lacked the time to do this and were under a deadline".

Just so we're clear, my argument is that these people are academics who conducted a very time-intensive project within the span of one month as they were fufilling other obligations, including working on dissertations or teaching classes etc. This wasn't for an academic journal, it was an independent project. So yeah, my expectations are pretty low. The nature of this type of work demands, what, at least 3 months? I'm not going to snipe at people for messing up on such short notice.

edit: introducing many explanatory variables in social scientific research, particularly w/r/t voting behavior is a fraught process because there are multicollinearity problems that are difficult to address in a satisfying manner. Black % is going to correlate with ultra-Latino precincts and poor/immigrant precincts. Income is going to correlate with assimilation. I know this because I've actually tried to do this sort of analysis and it doesn't really work. I assume that there are statistical techniques that can finesse these issues (I don't know them because I am an undergrad) but, really, there's no way to get around these problems. This is social science. Statistics isn't an oracle, it can only point to tendencies and make very broad estimates that are up for dispute because there are assumptions involved.

a further addition: it appears that statisticians do not think that partial multicollinearity is much of a problem arguing that it might only make estimates "more ambiguous" but, considering that social science deals with the magnitude of effects and wants to produce fairly precise estimates, this is actually very important.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Oregon 2016 GE Pres Results on: December 03, 2016, 05:04:41 pm
What's striking about fine-grained results in the Northwest is the degree to which working class voters opted for third party candidates rather than voting for Trump, which reminds me of a similar tendency that occurred in 2000. As far as I can tell, there's some sort of correlation between support for third party candidates and the degree to which a community/precinct is working class, at least in Spokane but it appears that this tendency is present in Eugene as well. There are plenty of precincts where the two-party vote share sits at around 80%...

Another striking tendency is the degree to which all sections of the working class, including dirty bohemians/neo-hippies, swung away from Clinton. Trump's support didn't really erode in the section of Eugene that's dirt poor but known for left-wing activist and bohemian lifestyle choices. On the other hand, Clinton's vote share took a beating. This also occurred in Brown's Addition in Spokane, which has a similar feel to it. On the other hand, in Portland, the more bobo parts nearby Hawthorne clearly swung towards Clinton.

Keep up the good work! This is very interesting and revealing stuff, a reminder that Democratic strength in the Northwest stems from the unusual stability of the working class' support for Democratic candidates. Even in this darkest of years, the erosion of Democratic support in the Northwest looks mild in comparison to the rest of the country.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Monkey Cage: Donald Trump did not win 34% of Latino vote in Texas. on: December 03, 2016, 07:04:46 am
There's no way that Trump won 34% of the Latino vote in Texas and I'm not sure why Republicans are keen on arguing against this. Shouldn't you guys be happy that you can win national elections without feigning concern for immigrants and their spawn?
Did you read the article in the Washington Post?

Did you download the data set that they provided?

Why aren't you guys be out ... (whatever)?

Quote
"Higher income, or more integrated Hispanic voters would be more likely to vote for Trump, and may have been carelessly excluded from the study."

There's a clear positive correlation between income/education and a swing against Trump in California among Latinos. As far as I can tell, it's working class Tejanos, Mexican-Americans and Hispanos who swung towards Trump, which makes sense considering that border patrol agents, ICE employees and cops in southern Texas are Latino.

"In rural counties, Clinton won an estimated 77 percent of the Latino vote against 19 percent for Trump."

They treated Webb, Presidio, Starr, Hidalgo, Zapata, Potter as rural counties.

Look at the swing in South Texas.

This study purported to be by a doctoral candidate at UCLA. It was junior high level incompetent. If you are in junior high, no personal insult intended.

I don't understand why this matters. If the objective is to estimate the Latino vote as a whole, this type of error is totally irrelevant and has no bearing on the outcome of the study. Is it comically absurd? Yes, of course, but I wouldn't underestimate the difficult of gathering such a large data set; this is a very labor-intensive, time-intensive process and I know because I've conducted studies myself. It took me a very long time to gather the data. I'm mostly happy that someone did this.

Anyways, no, I have not downloaded the data set but I have looked at precinct results. Considering the huge turnout spikes in poorer immigrant-heavy neighborhoods, which tend to be located in larger metropolitan areas like Houston, Dallas, San Antonio and El Paso, even though there wasn't much of a swing towards Clinton, the changing nature of the Latino vote itself ought to have resulted in a pretty sizable swing towards Clinton. Tendency seems to be: larger swing towards Clinton among more affluent, assimilated Latinos in major cities; slight swing to no swing among poorer Latinos who speak Spanish. I haven't seen data around Brownsville or McAllen so I can't say much about that but I've trawled through precinct maps of Travis County, Harris County and El Paso County. These are the tendencies I noticed.

I still maintain that the desire to defend the exit poll makes sense: you don't need us now. You can stop pretending to care about Latinos!
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Place for Trump voters to repent on: December 03, 2016, 04:10:56 am
And Trump will most likely create 20,000,000 jobs.

And with Mitt Romney as Secretary of State, the Trump administration and Romney will have achieved world peace by the end of Trump's terms.  


Lincoln Cuckservative: man who opposed Trump up until Trump won and then bowed before him like a whimpering eunuch before his new Emperor. You are a sniveling coward and a weakling.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Nevada potentially could recount on: December 03, 2016, 04:03:08 am
Since evergreen doesn't want to engage, I will: I don't post on Bad Atlas very often but I lurk and I find this new take of yours to be very irritating because it's totally disingenuous. Considering that Trump is a fascist who has shown little regard for the Constitution, human rights and racial minorities, is it really a mystery that Democrats would want to delegitimize his election?

I'm not sure what "logic" or "reason" would dictate here. Am I supposed to say "ah yes, democracy worked as intended because the interests of the public were made clear at the ballot box,"? The public voted against me in a very personal manner and also voted for a scumbag who is a threat to democracy, liberalism, freedom, tolerance etc. This is what Trump hath wrought and he could mend these attitudes but you cannot run a campaign like he ran over the past two years and expect anyone to respect him. He has destroyed democratic mechanisms which were already crumbling and there's no turning back now. The Rubicon has been crossed and the goal is to resist this Fascist.

To be blunt, no, I don't particularly care whether or not the public legitimately or illegitimately elected a fascist to be President of the United States. Intellectually, the outcome appears to be legitimate to me but my reaction would be the same: do everything in my power to ensure that Trump fails and fails miserably in his quest to plunder, loot and pillage from the American people, and in his quest to turn America into a disturbing Apartheid state. "Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice".
8  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Monkey Cage: Donald Trump did not win 34% of Latino vote in Texas. on: December 03, 2016, 03:20:57 am
There's no way that Trump won 34% of the Latino vote in Texas and I'm not sure why Republicans are keen on arguing against this. Shouldn't you guys be happy that you can win national elections without feigning concern for immigrants and their spawn?

"Higher income, or more integrated Hispanic voters would be more likely to vote for Trump, and may have been carelessly excluded from the study."

There's a clear positive correlation between income/education and a swing against Trump in California among Latinos. As far as I can tell, it's working class Tejanos, Mexican-Americans and Hispanos who swung towards Trump, which makes sense considering that border patrol agents, ICE employees and cops in southern Texas are Latino.
9  General Politics / Economics / Re: decline of the middle class - inevitable? on: November 25, 2016, 06:50:25 pm
    So, adding to the labor supply for IT will also increase the demand for IT? Or is there some other fashion in which this works out to be a positive-sum game?

Adding to the labor supply for IT in the US increases the demand for IT in the US.

What makes you surprised?

     I would expect the demand to exist more or less independent of the supply. Is in the US meant to contrast between demand for IT here versus demand for IT abroad, as in it would be outsourced otherwise?

I can't speak for ag but I think it's clear that this is what he means.

My interpretation of his posts is that he's referring to the idea of "economies of agglomeration"; industries develop cost-advantages when firms in related markets are "clustered". This is very similar to the idea of "network effects" or "economies of scale". Both the Silicon Valley and the Seattle metro area are important clusters of the tech industry; start-ups intending on attracting venture capital tend to locate themselves in both regions because there are obvious benefits to doing so. Firms can benefit from an already extant labor supply of workers who have human capital applicable to their field, it might be easier for them to be part of a supply chain and they also might benefit from "technology spillovers" etc.

In the tech industry, I'd argue that that the first point is the most important. Firms in this industry need highly-skilled workers and, if the labor market is tight, they need to be able to easily attract workers from elsewhere. It's vastly easier to get workers to relocate to the Silicon Valley or Seattle than it is to get them to relocate to Albuquerque or San Antonio etc. Those supplying their labor face "moving costs" and are aware that some position might be a bad fit or short-term so they're going to tend to be averse to moving to a city where they can't easily find work with another firm.

All of this lays the groundwork for ag's point: constraining the labor supply in the US for the IT industry could have the effect of generating competitor (?) agglomerations elsewhere that, in due time, would overwhelm agglomerations in the US. Because we're discussing an industry that is "international", where services and products are traded on global markets, this could have the effect of, over time, crushing the American tech sector. Now, I'm of the opinion that industrial policy matters so this might not occur: electricity is very expensive/unwieldy in India and Mexico, infrastructure might be limited, corruption might hamper things etc. Other countries would have to make strenuous efforts to develop a hub of the tech industry. However, they'd almost certainly be aided by a restrictive immigration policy in the US: our labor supply in the tech industry, whether we're discussing "entrepreneurs" or "R&D people" or mid-level employees comes from abroad. If we restrict immigration, we will cede our advantages to other countries. India and China would benefit; we would gain nothing.
10  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / International Elections / Re: French presidential election, April 23rd & May 7th, 2017 on: November 20, 2016, 06:51:09 pm
A few thoughts:
-it's good as heck that Fascist Junior lost
-it's still awful that Fillon won because he's arguably the worst possible choice to face-off against Le Pen
-now that Juppe is dead in the water, I support Melenchon, may god save us all.

It's hard to find much written about Fillon in the Anglo press but it seems to me that he's known for his attempts to liberalize labor laws and raising the retirement age? If you think that this is a good profile to go up against Le Pen, I suggest that you take a few weeks to reflect upon your demise because this is exactly the type of candidate that fascists can win against.
11  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The Official Trump 1.0 Approval Ratings Thread on: November 20, 2016, 08:12:28 am


These numbers are far better than I expected them to be.
12  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Should jaichind's property be seized and redistributed? on: November 19, 2016, 07:52:44 am
Yes and we should ship him and his family to Taiwan also. After all, it's important that we maintain Euro-centric values. Smiley
13  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Question for Trump supporters - when did America stop being 'great'? on: November 19, 2016, 07:46:20 am
In a very different sense and definition one can argue that late 1980s was when America became not "Great" in my mind.  I always have been a supporter of an Euro-centric America where it is clear that USA was built on Western Civilization and is a West European Civilization offshoot.   In my mind all public discourse should be based on the premise that the dominant cultural norm of America is a Euro-centric America.  In the late 1980s was when this basic premise which I considered core began to change.  Words like Multiculturalism, "Diversity is our strength" etc etc started to prop up.  Even as an extreme atheist I found it demoralizing that then I was told that one cannot say "Happy Christmas" anymore for fear of offending people.

Western Civilization, in my mind, is the superior civilization in the world.  As a Chinese I find sad to admit that this is true but it is.  It is my hope that one day the Chinese Civilization can reach parity with the West but that would have be based on real accomplishments and not empty mumbo-jumbo statements like "we are all the same" and "diversity is our strength."  Until then I find it demoralizing that a nation that I live in based on what I consider the superior civilization would choose to abandon those European roots and in that sense became not "Great" in my eyes.  I also found it sad that during college I often ended up being the vanguard to defend Western Civilization where it was clearly under attack when it was not even "my" civilization.  

When I voted for Trump I did not vote for Trump the person who I have fairly negative feelings toward but I voted for an Euro-centric America.  

I hope Trump's brownshirts put you and your family on a boat and ship y'all back to Taiwan so we can preserve our Euro-centric values. Smiley
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: If you could go back in time and replace one or both candidates... on: November 19, 2016, 02:16:33 am
I'd replace Trump with Cruz and Clinton with Sanders.
15  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How large was Bernie's mass base among the "white working class"? on: November 17, 2016, 03:57:45 am
Quote
I come from the white working class, and I am deeply humiliated that the Democratic Party cannot talk to the people where I came from.

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/798192678785716224

Bernie grew up in Jewish Brooklyn in the 40s and 50s, so he wouldn't have been seen as a member of the generic white American working class (though he does represent this demographic as a congressman and senator from Vermont).

Also, I really don't think one can appeal specifically and explicitly to the WWC in a progressive manner.    

You would not have said this as recently as ten years ago. The issue is that the character of the "WWC" has changed over the past few decades. What used to be widely accepted in these communities has changed with the destruction of organized labor and the death of the "Greatest Generation" (and the Silent Generation and many Baby Boomers; those born later than ~1960-1965 or so won't have much of a memory of organized labor or the left). Also worth noting that what is considered to be "progressive" has changed as well.
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How did your precinct vote? on: November 17, 2016, 03:54:40 am
Clinton 54%
Trump 27%

GREAT HONER

proud of the youth around here for standing up against fascism.
17  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: If you faced being drafted 2.0 on: November 17, 2016, 03:51:54 am
3 months ago, I would have said "civil service". Now, I would flee the country. Why would I want to serve God Emperor Trump in any capacity?
18  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Has Santandar gone full out racist in the past week on: November 17, 2016, 03:48:46 am
Santander is a fraud and a twitter egg so this shouldn't be a concern.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Hillary breaks 50% in Orange County, California on: November 17, 2016, 03:41:39 am
They feel insecure that most people rejected them. They know they are the minority.

lol. You lost, get over it.

On the contrary, we all won bigly this year. The grand prize? A miserable, miserable death in the nuclear hellfire that will be the Climate Refugee World War 2 Electric Boogaloo that starts when Uday and Qusay get a bit reckless when droning refugees in the Pacific and accidentally torch off a Chinese patrol boat.
20  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: I'm proud of the Hillary Clinton campaign. on: November 17, 2016, 03:38:07 am
I'm proud to have voted for her and I know that I always will be proud of this vote. When I am an old man, if I have children or grandchildren, I will be able to look them in the eye and hold my head up high and say "I voted against fascism and I bit my tongue even though I had many differences with the candidate in question". For the many failures of Clinton's campaign, she took the threat seriously and did her best to raise awareness about the threat so I congratulate/salute her for this.
21  About this Site / The Atlas / Re: So IceSpear's West Virginia thing has gotten overtly bigoted on: November 17, 2016, 03:34:06 am
Yeah, the comments in the Iowa thread are the disgusting ones, not IceSpear's.

You'll get no apology from me!

If you want to be a cuck/white knight for a bunch of people you don't know, fine, but know that I literally have family members who are farmers in Iowa. The idea that I cannot insult a state that looms large in my biography, even though I have never been there, and that voted for a man who poses a threat to my existence is, well, hilarious.

This PC garbage is totally out of control imo.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential General Election Polls / Re: IA-Selzer/DMR/Mediacom: Trump +7 on: November 17, 2016, 03:30:07 am
"How Stupid Are the People of Iowa?"

Very, very stupid, apparently.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: How large was Bernie's mass base among the "white working class"? on: November 16, 2016, 04:44:25 am
Among active union members who actually show up to hang out at union halls? It's very substantial, actually. These people were passionate Bernie supporters. I did a bit of Facebook research and noticed that it was very common for there to be rogue Facebook groups like "IBEW for Bernie" or "Teamsters for Bernie" and it was clear that most posts there were from actual members. As an example, there was a Politico story about the United Steelworkers local that represented workers at the Carrier plant that Trump loved speaking about. Almost all of the active members of this local backed Bernie and hated Trump (presumably many ultimately backed Trump though?). I think it's worth taking seriously the idea that Bernie has some sort of mass base here and, let's face it, it is very unusual for union people to be this passionate about any presidential candidate these days...

As far as non-union people are concerned? The base is essentially confined to young white working class people without college degrees. There were plenty of "Sanders-Trump" voters among this constituency or, at the very least, plenty of Sanders sympathizers here.
24  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: WSJ: Obama is "grooming" surprised Trump on: November 14, 2016, 07:17:18 am
Liberals are pussies.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Popular Rage: A Trump Timeline on: November 14, 2016, 04:12:45 am
Looks very nice! Can't wait to see how this goes!

uh, you and me both dude?

jesus this is dark. i thought about this TL once after the election. very depressing...
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 179


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines