Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Nate Silver won't be embarrassed in Clinton wins by 10 percent in the popular election. He's consistently said that the polling error he's factoring in (as more uncertainty in the model's predictions) can swing either way. When Clinton was peaking all the articles said that while Trump can still win, it's equally likely (or was at that point) that Clinton might take Georgia and Texas to finish a landslide.
It's not accurate to claim 538 is favouring only Trump with the high degree of uncertainty in the model. It's always included big wins for Clinton as a possibility, and always had her as the favourite. I think it's admirable how they've stuck to the model and defended its inherent uncertainty. To me that's more honest than cherry picking the polls you like to feel good.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.But it's quite odd that despite Clinton having the advantage in early polling, there are more newly registered Democrats than Republicans, Latino turnout is huge, and the fact that Nevada was always bad at polling, somehow they decide to increase Trump's odds by 1% because he won a few polls in a deep red state like Utah or something.
Also, surely 538 would know that even though Trump had like a low chance to win the nomination, that's the thing, it wasn't impossible. Also he was competing against 12 other dudes and shit.
edited 5th Nov '16 1:43:59 PM by NoName999
Trump may have already lost Nevada
So in previous years, analysts like Ralston have found success in reading tea leaves from Nevada’s early voting numbers instead. And all week, Ralston has been warning of danger signs for Trump. The partisan and geographic breakdown of early voting turnout has looked similar to 2012, when Barack Obama won the state by 6 and a half points. But the final day of early voting Friday was, Ralston writes, “cataclysmic” for Republicans.
Ralston is looking at two main things — the numbers of registered Democrats who have voted compared to registered Republicans, and the geography of the turnout.
Though the statewide early voting numbers aren’t yet finalized, Ralston estimates that registered Democrats will have a 6 point lead on registered Republicans among early voters. Since registered partisans tend to overwhelmingly vote for their own party, Trump probably either needs to dominate among early voters associated with neither party or else make up the gap on election day.
Ralston flags the numbers from Clark County, which contains Las Vegas and three quarters of the state’s population, and where Democrats have drawn much of their support. So far, he writes, 73,000 more registered Democrats turned out than registered Republicans in Clark — and if those voters back their party’s candidates, that’s a big lead in raw votes that will be very difficult for Republicans to overcome with the more sparsely populated counties elsewhere. (In 2012, Obama beat Romney statewide by about 70,000 votes.)
Anecdotally, there appears to have been very high turnout among Hispanic voters in Clark on Friday
Nevada’s not normally much of a factor in presidential elections, but it is a state that's always close and where it feels like Democrats are swimming against the current. If Trump is losing there, he's almost certainly losing other swing and battleground states.
I think the words "Madam President" are sounding better and more likely every day.
What do we call Bill now, though?
edited 5th Nov '16 1:57:21 PM by KarkatTheDalek
Oh God! Natural light!Re: #148624
"Willy" seems appropriate, given his past indiscretions
edited 5th Nov '16 1:59:32 PM by sgamer82
There was a political cartoon from the 2008 election musing on that very issue. Their answer? "First Ladies' Man." (Picture Hillary in the oval office. Through the windows, we see Bill in his underwear chasing some chicky-babe interns around on the south lawn...)
This Space Intentionally Left Blank.The official term for what Bill's position in the United States Government will be when Hillary becomes President is "First Spouse." While the former First Ladies have been referred to unofficially by that particular term and Bill will be unofficially referred to as First Gentleman should Hillary become President, the official term the United States Government uses nowadays for the position is First Spouse, because they understood the need for a gender-neutral term.
edited 5th Nov '16 2:10:54 PM by GameGuruGG
Wizard Needs Food BadlyI'm reading up about the Federalist Papers. Pretty impressive stuff:
How come US politicians nowadays don't seem to be aiming to set the stage for future generations? Why do they seem to act like they don't know History has its eyes on them?
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.When did this photo happen?
◊ And is it even real? And why does it feel so rapey and wrong?
re: titles, the general rule is that you refer to someone by the highest title they've held unless they're acting in an official capacity as one of their currently-held titles. That's why they referred to Hillary as "Secretary Clinton" during the debates (Secretary of State being the highest office she's occupied) despite her no longer being Secretary. Bill is still called "President Clinton" for the same reason. In a situation where Bill was attending an event as "the spouse of the sitting President" rather than as "a former POTUS", he'd be called First Gentleman Clinton rather than President Clinton.
Personally, I think it's going to be interesting after Hillary leaves office, where she and her husband will be "President Clinton and President Clinton".
Really from Jupiter, but not an alien.

quelle surprise.
edited 5th Nov '16 1:23:02 PM by Deadbeatloser22
"Yup. That tasted purple."