Michael Moore and Professor Smartdude predict Trump wins!

[estar]

Ironically, one of the biggest things that causes ideological voting at the national level is...going after corruption. Pork barrel projects, rider amendments, all the things people say they don't want? Really, people mean they don't want others to have them.  And now they've largely gone away at the national level, just for the optics of it (Bridge to Nowhere, etc.). Now there's no reason to compromise with the Republican from Oklahoma because you'll get some education funding or the Democrat from New Jersey because you'll get some road repairs done. And business grinds to a halt.

Exactly. I never had a problem with pork barrel project as long as it was transparent and easy to figure out who got what. The same for campaign donation, I don't care how much and how often a candidates gets money but I do want to know where it came from.  If the candidate's campaign paid by Tom Pendergast and the St. Louis political machine then that a fact I like to know before I decide to vote.

Same thing when 'Congress' has lower approval rates than , yet the re-election rate is generally in the high 90th percentile. People don't like YOUR Congressman, the bastard. Theirs is just fine. I think the re-election rates are fluctuating now (85% in 2010, 90% in 2012, back up to 95% in 2014) because, you can't say "I got you school funding!". Working with the other side is now verboten and anyway that's corruption. You'll get primaried. So you vote the party line, brush up your ideological slogans and nothing gets done.

Yes and no, I would say it the dominant factor now, local issues or federal actions with local implications can still have an impact so you can't skate by solely on being charismatic and spouting the right ideology. Lyndon Johnson was a master at pulling levers when he was a Senator because he knew how everybody ticked. However it didn't come overnight and he had to learn the ropes to speak. I think part of the problem is that next "Lyndon Johnson" hasn't emerged. A person who figures how the levers work in this day and day and learns how to use that as a leader of Congress or as President.

And unlike most countries with Parliament the majority party doesn't have total absolute control of either house of congress, especially the senate, or the government. If you have the majority in Great Britian or Germany (and a less extent France) you get to pick not only what bill get considered and passed but how they are implemented by the government. Even when there are coalitions once the governing structure is setup and position doled out they are reasonably effective at passing and implement measure. That is until there is something occurs that a compromise can't be worked out on, everything craters and new elections have to be called.

There is none of that in the United States Government. The whole structure of two houses of congress, presidency, supreme court, 50 state governments, etc was deliberately design to frustrate and slow down the process of government.

I have yet to hear anybody put a credible theory of how my representative, Mike Kelly of Erie Pa, is part of some grand Republican conspiracy to do X. Or his predecessor Kathy Dahlkemper was part of a grand Democratic conspiracy. Or any of the representatives in neighboring district, or my local state rep and state senators. Lets see what do I get to vote on.

Crawford Central School Board
West Mead Township Supervisor
( bunch of County Offices)
(the County Judges)(we vote for retention it not a runoff between two candidates)
Crawford County Commissioners (in PA these are the guys in charge of actually setting up and managing the elections)
State Representative
State Senators
(a bunch of state offices like Attorney General)
(State Supreme Court Justices) (we vote for retention)
Governor of the State of Pennsylvania
Representative to the US House of Representative
United States Senator
Electors for the United States President (the candidate with the plurality votes gets all of PA's electoral vote)

Conspiracy my ass.

well I suppose the fact that my county has used voting machines with no individual ballots since the 1950s could be considered evidence of a conspiracy. But then again we have elected Democratic majorities, especially in Meadville the county seat, and it is quite obvious once you get outside of town that the county is overwhelmingly Republican judging by the signs that get placed every years. It does bothers me a bit I have to push a lever (20 years ago) or tap a screen (now) and not have a single ballot attributed to my vote. However it seem to just work and more importantly each voting district is independently in charge of recording, tabulating, and sending in the result. And nearly all of the voting districts are literally run by little old ladies locally known for their sense of civic duty. And the few times I lived and voted elsewhere seemed to work the same way.

So yeah I will go with conspiracy my ass.

[estar]

So, certainly, what remains of the gullible public will blindly accept the pneumonia story, more discriminating will simply go "gee, they're just retrenching to a more defensible lie."

Let me ask you this, what the fuck does it matter what NBC, MSNBC, Fox News, CBS, ABC, etc, etc do? Yes they have millions of viewers but have you looked at their numbers relative to 20, 10 years ago? Have you read people's facebook streams when they talk about politics? A Democrats and a Republican's.

I know most of us here grew during the 80s and 90s when the channels were just a little down from their 70s high but it not even that anymore. It doesn't matter that MSNBC is a favored liberal haunt and Fox News is a conservative wet dreams. There are a thousand on a thousand sources of news and opinion one could drink from. And for stuff like Facebook, I would say that people are at best one or two steps from somebody who read stuff regularly there and on-line.

The only truism today is that if you care about making an informed decision you have to read multiple sources and then do it again to make sure you really covered all the bases.

With Clinton's health the story is simple, she gets sick. Also that she not going to broadcast the world when she gets sick because that all people talk about for the next few days about that person especially when they are a celebrity or well known. She been campaigning hard and consistently since 2015 and travelling for years as Secretary of State prior to that. I doubt she is on death's doorstep or even wind up in Woodrew Wilson's situation.

As for Trump, it obvious he acts toward women like a particular type of celebrity that we seen before time and time again. The type we wouldn't trust to be around a daughter. There is a chance this is an act that is he puts on to sell his name as a luxury brand and that the incident being reported are overblown. But even that doesn't speak well of him and the end result the same, your image is of a guy you wouldn't want your daughter to be around. It didn't matter to most when he was obviously selling a luxury brand but now that he is running President it matters a lot.

But fuck scandals and conspiracies, you need to ask yourself what will happen when either candidate gets into office. And decide whether that is acceptable. Neither of them are mustache twirling villains. Are you going to vote for the old pro with decades of experience or you are going vote for the populist with a new approach. Keeping in mind that the old pro has tons of baggage due to accumulation of decisions and mistakes over the year, and the populist exhibits offensive behavior and have little in the way of friends and allies in his own party.

And if you are versed on american history it shouldn't be a surprise to you, we have had old pols and populist run before and that should give you a sense of the possibilities.

[estar]

That is a very interesting point, Michael. Are there any articles or studies that provide more in-depth analysis of the effect?

Look up stuff about the Freedom Caucus. And keep an eye on the supporters of Bernie Sanders throughout the next cycle. It could wind up being a hard right ideological faction in the form of the Freedom Caucus, a more centrist right, a more centrist left, and a hard core left ideological faction. I wouldn't be surprised to see a grand realignment happen.

[Michael Gray]

That is a very interesting point, Michael. Are there any articles or studies that provide more in-depth analysis of the effect?

Aside from that, I've felt that politics have been on a trend of nationalization and becoming more ideology-bound at least since the Reagan era. I don't see modern media as particularly important for the trend, but rather "branding" based on national issues. However it's hard to say what is branding vs what's the core goal. Perhaps it's not important since the primary system--which, remember, only took its current form in 1972--encourages polarization and the "capture" of the two parties by their extreme wings.

I don't know what studies have been done as I'm out of school and not working in the PoliSci arena, no access to any good journals, but here are some articles:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/10/29/congress-earmarks-legislation-spending/3295509/

http://www.taxpayer.net/media-center/article/earmark-system-has-its-benefits

http://www.econ.upd.edu.ph/perse/?p=1670

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2013/10/30/lessons-from-the-shutdown-pork-and-earmarks-help-break-gridlock/

[crkrueger]

Ironically, one of the biggest things that causes ideological voting at the national level is...going after corruption. Pork barrel projects, rider amendments, all the things people say they don't want? Really, people mean they don't want others to have them.  And now they've largely gone away at the national level, just for the optics of it (Bridge to Nowhere, etc.). Now there's no reason to compromise with the Republican from Oklahoma because you'll get some education funding or the Democrat from New Jersey because you'll get some road repairs done. And business grinds to a halt.

Same thing when 'Congress' has lower approval rates than , yet the re-election rate is generally in the high 90th percentile. People don't like YOUR Congressman, the bastard. Theirs is just fine. I think the re-election rates are fluctuating now (85% in 2010, 90% in 2012, back up to 95% in 2014) because, you can't say "I got you school funding!". Working with the other side is now verboten and anyway that's corruption. You'll get primaried. So you vote the party line, brush up your ideological slogans and nothing gets done.

Actually, it's not getting rid of corruption, it's getting rid of one kind of "corruption" - backroom deals to get shit done for the people who elected you (which is actually what you're supposed to be doing), while engaging in a real, bought and paid for, Quid Pro Quo, type of corruption - doing the bidding of the people who fund your campaign.

[Doom]

Let me ask you this, what the fuck does it matter what NBC, MSNBC, Fox News, CBS, ABC, etc, etc do? Yes they have millions of viewers but have you looked at their numbers relative to 20, 10 years ago? Have you read people's facebook streams when they talk about politics? A Democrats and a Republican's.

Well, that's exactly my point: mainstream media is irrelevant, so clearly biased in their narratives, so blatantly false on so many occasions, that, as you've pointed out, their viewers are dropping like a stone.

On the other hand, the alternative media has issues as well. Then you throw in a large segment of the population that honestly believes "he spells America with a K, so everything he says is WRONG" is a valid logical argument, making it really tough to focus on the issues. Anyone who doesn't spout the right narrative is scrutinized...criticizing spelling is little different than castigating someone for something said privately 10 years ago.

Now you toss in that the media colluded to release that tape right before the debate, to further undermine Trump...while the media is screeching and clutching its pearls over vile language, Russia was moving millions of people into bomb shelters, but lots of folks don't know that. I personally feel that "what is America doing to terrify Russia" is more newsworthy than "what did a couple guys joking around say, 10 years ago" but I respect that I'm a tiny minority.

Similarly, I find it hard to believe Hillary and the media were ok with lying about her health, in order to keep her health out of the mainstream news. Mainstream media has no trouble not covering everything else they don't feel like covering (too many examples to list), so I find this alibi not credible, either.

So, yes, we need to look at more than just one site. After all, Trump's talk at the Al Smith dinner received negative press coverage for jokes that fell flat. Trump's talk with a 4:1 ratio of likes to dislikes. Hillary's talk same night, same place, received no negative press coverage for jokes that fell flat...but the ratio is way worse. (There are many videos of this talk, so numbers vary, but best I found pro-Hillary was around 2:1).

These types of disconnects are all over the place. A professor's election model has predicted the winner of nearly every election since 1912, and he gives Trump an 87% chance of winning. Granted, he probably misspelled a word (or is a RACIST), so I'm sure he can be completely discounted as well. Such a weird disconnect in the face of the Official Polls that say Hillary is way, way, ahead.

Personally, I rather want Hillary to win as well. Hitler was very good for Germany, at least initially, and I could well die in the next few years, so she suits my short term plans unless she goes to war almost immediately. Additionally, the Republicrats are responsible for the huge mess we're in economically, and so when things finally collapse, I would prefer one of their ilk at the helm, to take the blame.

[Haffrung]

The big difference in recent years is that ideology is now a good enough  reason for many to a elect a person. It used to be it was nearly all about what the representative has done for the district or the senator done for the state. There is still a lot of that but people are more willing these days to solely judge on the basis of ideology. If the rep doesn't get caught in a crime, and does a basic level of constituent work, he or she can be a total incompetent at passing anything useful for his district as long as he vote the right way and advocates the right things. This is true of right or left. Going hand in hand with this is general willingness to leave government too crippled to do anything. That this is not a left thing or a right thing but a thing of our age.

My view is that it all resulting from a perfect storm of factors. If there is a common cause is it is continual advancement of technology and us, the people of the United States, responding to it. Growing up our grandparents lived in a era of mass raido CBS, NBC-Blue, and NBC-Red, our parents lived in a era of NBC, ABC, and CBS televisions, and now today where there is a thousand on a thousand ways of getting news and opinion. That we are adapting to this and will have to learn how to work together and compromise in this new era.

There is no conspiracy, no shadowly cabal, at work here. Just millions for the first time in human history receiving raw information from the world at large.

I'd also suggest that modern technology has given people a glut of entertainment and made them very impatient. The nuts and bolts of politics - budgets and projects and laws and deals and trade-offs - now seem too boring to the average person. Too complex. Unsatisfying. It fails to engage. But ideology is about emotion and righteousness and us and them. It's simple. And it engages just fine.

Same thing when 'Congress' has lower approval rates than , yet the re-election rate is generally in the high 90th percentile. People don't like YOUR Congressman, the bastard. Theirs is just fine. I think the re-election rates are fluctuating now (85% in 2010, 90% in 2012, back up to 95% in 2014) because, you can't say "I got you school funding!". Working with the other side is now verboten and anyway that's corruption. You'll get primaried. So you vote the party line, brush up your ideological slogans and nothing gets done.

As a Canadian, it seems pretty clear to me that gerrymandering is the root of many of the problems with the U.S. polity. A candidate does not need to appeal to a broad cross-section of voters to win election, he only needs to win over the partisans in his party. That leads to ideological litmus tests and polarization. My prescription to fix the American system is for a body of foreign experts to redraw every congressional district in the country on a neutral basis, ignoring the demographic and partisan data that contorts districts into bizarre shapes.

[Michael Gray]

I'd also suggest that modern technology has given people a glut of entertainment and made them very impatient. The nuts and bolts of politics - budgets and projects and laws and deals and trade-offs - now seem too boring to the average person. Too complex. Unsatisfying. It fails to engage. But ideology is about emotion and righteousness and us and them. It's simple. And it engages just fine.



As a Canadian, it seems pretty clear to me that gerrymandering is the root of many of the problems with the U.S. polity. A candidate does not need to appeal to a broad cross-section of voters to win election, he only needs to win over the partisans in his party. That leads to ideological litmus tests and polarization. My prescription to fix the American system is for a body of foreign experts to redraw every congressional district in the country on a neutral basis, ignoring the demographic and partisan data that contorts districts into bizarre shapes.

There's a supercomputer team in Illinois that have made something like 800 million redistricting maps. As long as you can say "This algorithm fairly divides shit up." you're more likely to get movement on that than bringing in a group of outsiders. But yes, gerrymandering is an issue.

[Spinachcat]

Dilbert gives Trump 98% to win in landslide!
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152293480726/the-bully-party

I favor Sam Wang of Princeton

I also favor...Wang.

This was the seminal moment, where it became perfectly clear to a great many people that you can't believe what the mainstream media is telling you. So, you do have to make a choice of who to believe.

THIS worries me a great deal.

We NEED a trustworthy mainstream press to have a functional democracy.

If the rep doesn't get caught in a crime, and does a basic level of constituent work, he or she can be a total incompetent at passing anything useful for his district as long as he vote the right way and advocates the right things. This is true of right or left. Going hand in hand with this is general willingness to leave government too crippled to do anything. That this is not a left thing or a right thing but a thing of our age.

Very true.

With Clinton we will get compromises, compromises that will protect the interests of Democrats and Republican alike.

I agree, as long as those Democrats and Republicans are millionaires and billionaires.  

Not because she is that altruistic but because she understand that how the United State Government works. A lesson that was driven into both her and her husband back in 1993 and 1994 when they went down in flames in the midterm elections.

There is no doubt Hillary is going down in flames in the 2018 midterm.

There was genuine passion and enthusiasm for Obama and his voters skipped both midterms. The only "enthusiasm and passion" around Hillary is people who want to see her imprisoned.

Without the Trump hate, what's going to motivate her voters in 2 years?  

Are you going to vote for the old pro with decades of experience or you are going vote for the populist with a new approach. Keeping in mind that the old pro has tons of baggage due to accumulation of decisions and mistakes over the year, and the populist exhibits offensive behavior and have little in the way of friends and allies in his own party.

That's a fair breakdown.

Except we have the option to vote for freaking Batman instead of supporting Joker or the Mob!!
http://balancedrebellion.com/

[JongWK]

Even Nate Silver, who has some disagreements with the USC polling method's results (and who despises Trump and very incorrectly predicted he'd massively lose in the primaries!) admits that the USC's fundamental method itself is very sound.

The problem with the USC poll is not the methodology, but the sample. A single pro-Trump black voter in Illinois within a very specific demographic group is what keeps warping the USC's polling results, because of the way their system is designed to weight it.

 I would advise considering this before citing it as evidence of Trump's lead in the election or unexpectedly strong support among black voters.

[estar]

There is no doubt Hillary is going down in flames in the 2018 midterm.

There was genuine passion and enthusiasm for Obama and his voters skipped both midterms. The only "enthusiasm and passion" around Hillary is people who want to see her imprisoned.

Without the Trump hate, what's going to motivate her voters in 2 years?

I think we are in charted waters at the moment. No I don't think that even if Clinton does well with getting her agenda enacted or display good leadership that it would help turnout for her at the 2018 midterms. Rather it will have to do with the Republican civil war and the fallout of the election. If the freedom caucus and populist wings speeds up the crazy train* then the magic 8-ball says "the future is cloudy". On the democratic side the Sanders faction, not necessarily led by Sanders himself mind you, may grow into a force in of itself.

It could very well be that the 2016 to 2018 will be an era of massive realignment.

*crazy in the sense that they do everything except for actually trying to get anything from their policies passed and/or governing.

[estar]

As a Canadian, it seems pretty clear to me that gerrymandering is the root of many of the problems with the U.S. polity. A candidate does not need to appeal to a broad cross-section of voters to win election, he only needs to win over the partisans in his party. That leads to ideological litmus tests and polarization. My prescription to fix the American system is for a body of foreign experts to redraw every congressional district in the country on a neutral basis, ignoring the demographic and partisan data that contorts districts into bizarre shapes.

I agree with that along with the fact that the "reform" of eliminating earmarks has removed much of the old "give and take" horse trading that led to various past compromises. With limited ways of fighting for district specific project along with a general social shift on the left AND right to where even asking for specific benefits for one's district is somehow corrupt, the major thing left is ideological stances on national issues.

In the past as a Democrat could offer Republican Representative Bob from Mississippi a package of bridge improvement and other projects for his districts to get his vote on raising the minimum wage. I know will never get the full increase even with that trade but I may be able to get his agreement to support a smaller increase with the trade. Now that option is off the table for the most part.

And as you pointed Gerrymandering means that short of be a total incompetent or a criminal, all a representative has to do is say the right thing and support the right issues and he is in year after year.

[Spinachcat]

No I don't think that even if Clinton does well with getting her agenda enacted or display good leadership that it would help turnout for her at the 2018 midterms.

I absolutely believe Clinton will get her agenda enacted.

The private agenda. The one she can only discuss to donors behind locked doors.

On the democratic side the Sanders faction, not necessarily led by Sanders himself mind you, may grow into a force in of itself.

Doubtful.

Sanders lost his mojo and credibility when he gave up his campaign and babbled nonsense about "affecting Hillary's platform" and keeping Democrats feet to the fire to enact their platform. Sander is a joke now.

As for the Sanders faction, most were independents before Sander arrived. Few will stay attached to the Democrats, even if they vote for Hillary (for whatever reason). The Clinton machine and the DNC will purge any progressives who dare squeak once the coronation is done.

I agree with that along with the fact that the "reform" of eliminating earmarks has removed much of the old "give and take" horse trading that led to various past compromises.

True, but those same earmarks were ground zero for tremendous corruption.

Of course, we still have the corruption, but now the payment to the politicians are done differently.

[Doom]

I doubt many haven't seen it, but here's Moore's latest Trump rant:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lMp_363B2c    (trigger warning: adult language)

He probably used grammar wrong, somewhere, at some point in his life, so feel free to completely disregard anything Moore says.

[Ratman_tf]

I doubt many haven't seen it, but here's Moore's latest Trump rant:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4lMp_363B2c    (trigger warning: adult language)

He probably used grammar wrong, somewhere, at some point in his life, so feel free to completely disregard anything Moore says.

#1. Title is misleading. He's not voting for Trump.

#2. I agree with most of what he says. I think Moore is a jackass, but I do not think he's stupid.

#3. I'm starting to think Trump's going to be close to Hillary in the popular, but get squashed in the electoral.