Jump to content
Moiraine

The General Election

Recommended Posts

FiveThirtyEight ranks Rasmussen with a means-reverted bias of +2.0 towards Repubs. By far the highest bias of any major poll. So a +2 Rasmussen for Trump is essentially tied anyway, before margin of error.

 

BRB, while it's fair to be cynical about the choices, not all of this falls on people with their misconceptions about D's or R's. We're in an ever-increasingly partisan environment, certainly the most so in my lifetime. Here's a handy chart showing the shift over the last couple decades (hit animate button).

 

Regardless of the result of the election, gridlock in Washington may be a greater threat to any meaningful change moreso than whichever polarizing option wins.

I'm failing to see your point. You say it shouldn't fall on the people who have misconceptions about Ds and Rs. Your first link has the following quote.

 

For the first time in surveys dating to 1992, majorities in both parties express not just unfavorable but very unfavorable views of the other party. And today, sizable shares of both Democrats and Republicans say the other party stirs feelings of not just frustration, but fear and anger.

 

 

If it doesn't fall on them, then who does it fall on?

 

My personal opinion is that the politicians keep getting more and more divisive because the public rewards them for it by voting for the one that is the most divisive (From the side they align with)...which is spurned on by these people consuming more and more partisan political media.....which also keeps getting rewarded by making more and more money from people getting angrier and angrier after watching their crap and so they keep watching it more. It's a vicious circle. We are in an era where a significant part of the population is drawn to the media outlet that provides them with the most outlandish negative view of the other side.

 

However, I haven't been able to find updated data but as of the beginning of the primary season, independents were the majority of Americans over and above both parties.

 

For the life of me, I can't understand why a third party candidate hasn't emerged stronger in this environment. The only reason I have been able to come up with is because everyone has the attitude of....Well, only an R or D has a chance.

 

That's a BS way of thinking about where we are at.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For the first time in surveys dating to 1992, majorities in both parties express not just unfavorable but very unfavorable views of the other party. And today, sizable shares of both Democrats and Republicans say the other party stirs feelings of not just frustration, but fear and anger.

 

 

 

I want to go back to this quote from the article because I think this is profoundly significant.

 

I personally believe this is a direct result of media that people consume. But, the media keeps getting rewarded by making more and more profits from putting out the most outlandish claims about the other side.

 

This entire issue isn't going to get better till there is a revolt against this type of media.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

For the first time in surveys dating to 1992, majorities in both parties express not just unfavorable but very unfavorable views of the other party. And today, sizable shares of both Democrats and Republicans say the other party stirs feelings of not just frustration, but fear and anger.

 

 

 

I want to go back to this quote from the article because I think this is profoundly significant.

 

I personally believe this is a direct result of media that people consume. But, the media keeps getting rewarded by making more and more profits from putting out the most outlandish claims about the other side.

 

This entire issue isn't going to get better till there is a revolt against this type of media.

 

Easier said than done, unfortunately, as I'm sure you realize. A lot of people don't want to challenge their media consumption, and want to continue accessing those types of media which most closely align with their viewpoints. Sadly, this often translates to an abundance of what I call "wallpaper content" - content that contains subjective claims, obvious biases or just flat out has no real substance.

 

My Facebook feed alone is FILLED with people posting articles from websites that, often times, I've never before encountered. And, many times, you can spot something in the headline like "here's what (insert liberals/conservatives here) DON'T want you to know about (insert horrible national incident here)!!!!"

 

As someone who has worked in the television media industry, you may be surprised at how content and dispersement discussions are handled. It's basically a conversation of how can we make this as simple as possible in the shortest time as possible, often aiming to create content that is consumable on a third grade reading level. I wish I were joking about that last bit, but it's true. A lot of people who consume media don't want to be challenged or confused, particularly on TV. And if you do challenge/confuse them, they just get angry.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

For the first time in surveys dating to 1992, majorities in both parties express not just unfavorable but very unfavorable views of the other party. And today, sizable shares of both Democrats and Republicans say the other party stirs feelings of not just frustration, but fear and anger.

 

 

 

I want to go back to this quote from the article because I think this is profoundly significant.

 

I personally believe this is a direct result of media that people consume. But, the media keeps getting rewarded by making more and more profits from putting out the most outlandish claims about the other side.

 

This entire issue isn't going to get better till there is a revolt against this type of media.

 

Easier said than done, unfortunately, as I'm sure you realize. A lot of people don't want to challenge their media consumption, and want to continue accessing those types of media which most closely align with their viewpoints. Sadly, this often translates to an abundance of what I call "wallpaper content" - content that contains subjective claims, obvious biases or just flat out has no real substance.

 

My Facebook feed alone is FILLED with people posting articles from websites that, often times, I've never before encountered. And, many times, you can spot something in the headline like "here's what (insert liberals/conservatives here) DON'T want you to know about (insert horrible national incident here)!!!!"

 

As someone who has worked in the television media industry, you may be surprised at how content and dispersement discussions are handled. It's basically a conversation of how can we make this as simple as possible in the shortest time as possible, often aiming to create content that is consumable on a third grade reading level. I wish I were joking about that last bit, but it's true. A lot of people who consume media don't want to be challenged or confused, particularly on TV. And if you do challenge/confuse them, they just get angry.

 

I completely agree with this.

 

First of all, it's been proven that after a few minutes, a lot of people completely stop paying attention. This is true even in a class room environment. So, to get the most information consumed by the listener, you have to divide a long presentation up into 3-5 minute segments. They will typically remember the first and last thing you say in those segments.

 

Translate that to TV and you have a situation where you don't have time to provide large amounts of information and what typically works is putting the most shocking information you can find into those few minutes....no matter if it really is true or not.

 

Also, if you challenge people's world view, they get angry at you instead of thinking....hmmm....maybe I need to learn more about this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess my point was that I think we need people in Washington to step up and guide us out of this hole we're in. Media obviously is a huge component of the situation we're in, but it's on our elected officials to reject this type of vitriolic culture and prove to us that they can still work productively together for the good of the American people. We cannot afford to let more partisan squabbling stand in the way of productive change. I guess I'm just venting that it seems like neither party is much interested in compromise anymore for the common good if they're not going to get their way.

 

Now, with the Tea Party, R's can't even agree amongst themselves much of the time.

 

The reason we still see such a high D/R vote is in my first link:

 

 

And independents, who now outnumber both Republicans and Democrats and overwhelmingly “lean” to one party or the other, are far more likely to cite negative than positive factors for why they form their loose partisan ties.

 

Indies still vote one way or the other pretty reliably.

 

I guess Trump realized the fact that people need media on that level, Enhance. There's no way that hasn't been a huge part of his rise. The guy talks at that level almost all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And speaking of Rasmussen, there have been 69 polls done in 2016 on RCP. Trump has led in 8 of them. Rasmussen accounts for 4 of those, 2 from Fox News, and 1 each from ABC/WaPo and USAToday/Suffolk. Rasmussen also had 1 poll as a Tie.

 

Given the rise in cell phones and the Internet, polling today is much harder to predict than ever before. Rasmussen was very accurate in 2004 and 2008 but not so much in 2012. Investors Business Daily/TIPP was actually the most accurate in 2012 according to Nate Silver, and they currently have Trump and Hillary pretty much tied in a 4-way contest as of June 30.

 

http://www.investors.com/politics/trump-holds-ground-against-clinton-ties-her-in-a-four-way-matchup/

 

Some polls do not focus on likely voters but instead registered voters. The biggest variable at play is predicting turnout, and Obama got a higher-than expected turnout in both 2008 and 2012. His supporters were energized to come out and vote for him, so it will be difficult to predict if those same voters are enthusiastic to come out for Hillary.

 

Also, most smart polling outfits recalibrate their polling methodologies based upon what they learned from the most recent election, but they can over-correct or not factor in the mood of the country. I think we will continue to see Hillary lead for some time, and her average margin may go up and down. When we hit labor day is when polling (especially swing state polling) becomes most important.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jim Webb won't rule out voting for Trump, but can't vote for Hillary -- of course he is the only acceptable 'Democrat' to your eyes.

 

I would say his lackluster campaign was responsible for his failed presidential bid. Perhaps he could have won as a Republican, but I doubt it. Celebrity status and national cache go an (unfortunately) long way, and he didn't have that.

 

It also seems that he really had a fairly light, or at best unextraordinary resume in public service, at least as far as candidates for the highest office in the land go. Not as light as Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Herman Cain, or Carly Fiorina. For that, I have no explanation. Actually -- maybe the explanation is obvious.

 

Well for starters, I likes Webb well before he stated he wouldn't vote for Hillary. I think in a normal campaign year where there was not an anointed candidate like HIllary, Webb would have had a chance, but I think his views were far too moderate for today's Democratic party.

 

As for resumes in public service, in case you have missed it, many voters don't like the career politicians we have, and government experience is not a requirement in 2016, and in some cases could be a liability depending on the voter. Obama had little real world business experience and zero executive experience prior to becoming POTUS and it has shown the past 7 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dude:

 

I don't disagree with that and that's why it's a vicious circle. People who are willing to do that don't get elected because people are so angry they gravitate to the candidate who says the most extreme things.

 

And....also a problem is that the two major parties themselves are the ones who have influenced the media. They have absolutely no motivation to change that because they gain power threw the media.

 

 

 

We are left chasing our tails.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be much more concerned about people in her security detail referring to her as a bitch because that would tend to be a comment on her actions privately and how she may treat people on a personal basis.

 

Such as secret service members writing about their personal accounts with them?

 

I'm not sure if you've read those or not, but if not, you need to. One (maybe more) even wrote a book about what he saw and heard during the Clinton presidency, and it paints an ugly picture. For all the people who call Trump the egomaniac and the one who lacks temperament (which I disagree with personally, but whatever) between the two, Hillary is WAY worse than anyone would care to believe...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would be much more concerned about people in her security detail referring to her as a bitch because that would tend to be a comment on her actions privately and how she may treat people on a personal basis.

 

Such as secret service members writing about their personal accounts with them?

 

I'm not sure if you've read those or not, but if not, you need to. One (maybe more) even wrote a book about what he saw and heard during the Clinton presidency, and it paints an ugly picture. For all the people who call Trump the egomaniac and the one who lacks temperament (which I disagree with personally, but whatever) between the two, Hillary is WAY worse than anyone would care to believe...

 

 

You mean the book that's been discredited by the guys who were actually on her detail?

 

I'd give proof, but I don't have time.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As for resumes in public service, in case you have missed it, many voters don't like the career politicians we have, and government experience is not a requirement in 2016, and in some cases could be a liability depending on the voter.
I think this is substantially more true in one party than the other.
Obama was young, and his inexperience was indeed a knock on him -- but his resume was enormously impressive. He has clearly been public service minded from a very young age, and was also a distinguished Harvard Law graduate and taught constitutional law at U Chicago. He rose in politics very fast, but he hardly came from nowhere.
Yes, sometimes being in politics for too long is a legitimate downside -- when you can't change from the ideas and workings of the past. This isn't true of all veteran politicians. And equally, there are also advantages (as you point out) in knowing how to be effective in DC.
There isn't an objective answer to the youth versus experience question (I'd draw an analogy to college football HCs, incidentally...). They're just factors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I would be much more concerned about people in her security detail referring to her as a bitch because that would tend to be a comment on her actions privately and how she may treat people on a personal basis.

 

Such as secret service members writing about their personal accounts with them?

 

I'm not sure if you've read those or not, but if not, you need to. One (maybe more) even wrote a book about what he saw and heard during the Clinton presidency, and it paints an ugly picture. For all the people who call Trump the egomaniac and the one who lacks temperament (which I disagree with personally, but whatever) between the two, Hillary is WAY worse than anyone would care to believe...

 

Hell to Pay: The unfolding story of Hillary Rodham Clinton by Barbara Olson.

 

The author was on one of the planes that crashed into the WTC on 9/11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Jim Webb won't rule out voting for Trump, but can't vote for Hillary -- of course he is the only acceptable 'Democrat' to your eyes.

 

I would say his lackluster campaign was responsible for his failed presidential bid. Perhaps he could have won as a Republican, but I doubt it. Celebrity status and national cache go an (unfortunately) long way, and he didn't have that.

 

It also seems that he really had a fairly light, or at best unextraordinary resume in public service, at least as far as candidates for the highest office in the land go. Not as light as Donald Trump, Ben Carson, Herman Cain, or Carly Fiorina. For that, I have no explanation. Actually -- maybe the explanation is obvious.

 

Well for starters, I likes Webb well before he stated he wouldn't vote for Hillary. I think in a normal campaign year where there was not an anointed candidate like HIllary, Webb would have had a chance, but I think his views were far too moderate for today's Democratic party.

 

As for resumes in public service, in case you have missed it, many voters don't like the career politicians we have, and government experience is not a requirement in 2016, and in some cases could be a liability depending on the voter. Obama had little real world business experience and zero executive experience prior to becoming POTUS and it has shown the past 7 years.

 

I think Trump should do the very unconventional thing and ask Webb to be his VP. Webb would have a lot of support from repubs and moderate Dems. But of course, it will never happen. The RNC would not allow it to happen and something this unconventional is probably way outside of Trump's unconventional mind. If Webb was the Dem nominee he'd get my serious consideration - In fact, I'd vote for him over Trump in a heart beat. :o (Yes, TG has voted for a Dem before)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Election Update: Is Gary Johnson Taking More Support From Clinton Or Trump?

 

And interesting read - covers a lot of ground.

 

The recently released tracking and weekly national polls, conducted by firms such as Ipsos, Morning Consult, SurveyMonkey and YouGov, continue to show Democrat Hillary Clinton ahead of Republican Donald Trump (with the exception of the Republican-leaning Rasmussen Reports). A new Pew Research Center poll also has Clinton ahead of Trump 45 percent to 36 percent, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 11 percent.

 

******

 

Right now, pollsters that include Johnson and, less frequently, Stein are showing Clinton with a slightly smaller lead than pollsters that test only Trump and Clinton.

 

******

 

Overall, including third-party candidates takes about 1 percentage point away from Clinton’s margin, on average.

 

*****

 

An average of YouGov surveys over the past two weeks indicates that Sanders primary voters who say they will vote for a third-party candidate are, by about a 3-to-1 ratio, more likely to choose Clinton than Trump when the third-party candidates aren’t an option. A full-throated Sanders endorsement could push many of these voters into the Clinton column, even with third-party candidates on the ballot. Their shift would make Clinton’s margin over Trump in the national polls about the same with third-party candidates as without.

 

LINK

I'm not surprised at this. Right now, most Trump followers are full steam ahead with blinders and ear plugs on. Since the primaries are over, a number of Repub voters jumped on the band wagon just because he has an R beside his name and it's all about how evil Hillary is.

 

Then, there are the Clinton/Democrats that are going to vote for her because she is the Democrat nominee. These people tend to still believe everything Repub is destroying anything good in the world and only supporting those evil corporations.

 

Then there are the middle people who either don't like both or just haven't decided. Mostly, they don't like what they see from either side. But, I think the majority of these people are much less comfortable with a blowhard egomaniac in Trump than a dishonest and corrupted life long politician in Clinton. So, they may tend to lean towards Clinton if only given those choices.

 

However, these are also the people who are more likely to have an open mind to a third option. So, if you throw someone like Johnson in, some of those will go to him instead of Clinton.

 

 

That's EXACTLY what the other side is doing too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Election Update: Is Gary Johnson Taking More Support From Clinton Or Trump?

 

And interesting read - covers a lot of ground.

 

The recently released tracking and weekly national polls, conducted by firms such as Ipsos, Morning Consult, SurveyMonkey and YouGov, continue to show Democrat Hillary Clinton ahead of Republican Donald Trump (with the exception of the Republican-leaning Rasmussen Reports). A new Pew Research Center poll also has Clinton ahead of Trump 45 percent to 36 percent, with Libertarian Gary Johnson at 11 percent.

 

******

 

Right now, pollsters that include Johnson and, less frequently, Stein are showing Clinton with a slightly smaller lead than pollsters that test only Trump and Clinton.

 

******

 

Overall, including third-party candidates takes about 1 percentage point away from Clinton’s margin, on average.

 

*****

 

An average of YouGov surveys over the past two weeks indicates that Sanders primary voters who say they will vote for a third-party candidate are, by about a 3-to-1 ratio, more likely to choose Clinton than Trump when the third-party candidates aren’t an option. A full-throated Sanders endorsement could push many of these voters into the Clinton column, even with third-party candidates on the ballot. Their shift would make Clinton’s margin over Trump in the national polls about the same with third-party candidates as without.

 

LINK

I'm not surprised at this. Right now, most Trump followers are full steam ahead with blinders and ear plugs on. Since the primaries are over, a number of Repub voters jumped on the band wagon just because he has an R beside his name and it's all about how evil Hillary is.

 

Then, there are the Clinton/Democrats that are going to vote for her because she is the Democrat nominee. These people tend to still believe everything Repub is destroying anything good in the world and only supporting those evil corporations.

 

Then there are the middle people who either don't like both or just haven't decided. Mostly, they don't like what they see from either side. But, I think the majority of these people are much less comfortable with a blowhard egomaniac in Trump than a dishonest and corrupted life long politician in Clinton. So, they may tend to lean towards Clinton if only given those choices.

 

However, these are also the people who are more likely to have an open mind to a third option. So, if you throw someone like Johnson in, some of those will go to him instead of Clinton.

 

 

That's EXACTLY what the other side is doing too.

 

Yep, the other side doesn't seem to see or care how flawed Hillary would be a President. The Trump supporters gloss over his major shortcomings. Gary Johnson is looking better every day.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×