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
By the same token of this mythical on the fence lurker, they may also be driven toward Trump if they see her supporters shooting down even the reasonable concerns about her, especially if that person has already said they don't support her opponents.
Furthermore, instead of debating on the basis of who might see I'd rather debate (insofar as I do here) with the people actually here who we are generally not worried about voting for Trump. The people who seem to take even the slightest umbridge at criticism (or even just worries) of Clinton (beyond the points where it's been pretty solidly shown to be spurious) aren't assuming good faith of the people making them. The election isn't going to be won or lost in this forum. We're at most 20 or so active people and an unknown number of lurkers. Don't Shoot the Message, particularly when you're mostly preaching to the choir.
edited 13th Sep '16 11:51:47 AM by Elle
That's among the whole electorate, among younger voters it's 18% for Johnson and 7% for Stein, almost all of which come from Clinton.
edited 13th Sep '16 11:55:18 AM by CaptainCapsase
She has almost twice his percentage in that demographic. I don't think she's the one suffering for the third party success.
Also, these numbers don't include Harambe the dead gorilla, so I am forced to conclude that the remaining 5% is him. I guess Harambe is mainly a hit with college students and baby boomers rather than the 25-35 crowd, since he's got enough of the general electorate to beat Stein 5% to 2%.
edited 13th Sep '16 12:02:20 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Let's not forget that having a majority of votes isn't as impressive with the electoral college around. Just ask Al Gore.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2000/dec/22/worlddispatch.martinkettle
When Trump's in danger of actually being overtaken by Johnson's supporters, I have a hard time seeing that as Hillary bleeding votes.
Also, I could more easily see Trump winning the electoral and losing the popular than vice versa. Winning the popular vote would require a majority of United States citizens to vote for him, and he's pissed off way too many demographics for that to happen.
Pretty much his only chance at taking the Presidency is electoral district bullshit.
edited 13th Sep '16 12:10:14 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.Clinton is loosing voters amongst younge voters, sure she's not behind Trump but she's lower tha she should be. She loosing votes not to Trump but to either third parties or the warmth of a comfy sofa.
Clinton has an 13 point lead over Trump with the 18-24 demographic, sounds good right? Obama has a 32 point lead over Trump with the same group, so where the hell are the 18 points of Obama supporters going?[1]
What i said earlier about leftists not reading mainstream media was a huge generalization, but the broad strokes is that the audience that really "follows" the news tends to be older. Younger people can be informed but they don't really seek out news articles or are engaged enough by the story to comment on them. Commenting on news stories without it being part of a chain on social media is more of an old person thing because young people tend to know that nobody cares about an individual comment on a Yahoo article and that you're just wasting your energy writing it, unless you're out to troll for reactions.
It's a structural thing that deals with age, whether the forum is moderated, and whether the comments section ties into broader social media (though note, just having your comments section powered by facebook does not stop people from being major tools under their real names. Some folks just don't care).
Hard to tell from that article, given that it only discusses the difference and not the actual percentages. Because two things:
- Obama has an advantage over Hillary in that he's been President for eight years. It's not a fair comparison, because one is "Do you think Trump would be a better President than Hillary Clinton might be?" and the other is "Do you think Trump would run the nation better than it's being run right now?"
- Without the actual percentages, those 18 points could be going anywhere, and not all of them have to go anywhere. It only takes 9% drifting to Trump over Hillary to reduce her lead by 18%. Every 1% he gains has a corresponding 1% that she loses.
edited 13th Sep '16 1:02:04 PM by TobiasDrake
My Tumblr. Currently side-by-side liveblogging Digimon Adventure, sub vs dub.The numbers I gave are net approval rating not vote percentage, but they're still important. So 18% of young people approve of the job Obama is doing but not the one Clinton has done.
However further down they do talk about vote percentage, specifically how when you reduce the race from 4 people to 2 Clinton's lead over Trump with 18-24s jumps from a 13 point lead to a 23 point lead.
They even crunched the numbers on the Obama comparison, if Clinton has Obama's approval rating amongst 18-24 year old she's get an effective 2% bump in the polls overall.
edited 13th Sep '16 1:06:45 PM by Silasw
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranTHE GEORGE W. BUSH WHITE HOUSE ‘LOST’ 22 MILLION EMAILS
Most troubling, researchers found a suspicious pattern in the White House email system blackouts, including periods when there were no emails available from the office of Vice President Dick Cheney. “That the vice president’s office, widely characterized as the most powerful vice president in history, should have no archived emails in its accounts for scores of days—especially days when there was discussion of whether to invade Iraq—beggared the imagination,” says Thomas Blanton, director of the Washington-based National Security Archive. The NSA (not to be confused with the National Security Agency, the federal surveillance organization) is a nonprofit devoted to obtaining and declassifying national security documents and is one of the key players in the effort to recover the supposedly lost Bush White House emails.The media paid some attention to the Bush email chicanery but spent considerably less ink and airtime than has been devoted to Clinton’s digital communications in the past 18 months. According to the Boston social media analytics firm Crimson Hexagon, which ran a study for Newsweek, there have been 560,397 articles mentioning Clinton’s emails between March 2015 and September 1, 2016.In 1978, Congress passed the Presidential Records Act (PRA), which mandated that all presidential and vice presidential records created after January 20, 1981, be preserved and that the public, not the president, owned the records. The following year, the Reagan administration installed the White House’s rudimentary first email system.
Despite the PRA, neither the Reagan nor the George H.W. Bush administration maintained email records, even as the number of White House emails began growing exponentially. (The Bush administration would produce around 200 million.) In 1989, a federal lawsuit to force the White House to comply with the PRA was filed by several groups, including the National Security Archive, which at the time was mostly interested in unearthing the secret history of the Cold War. The suit sparked a last-minute court order, issued in the waning hours of the first Bush presidency, that prevented 6,000 White House email backup tapes from being erased.When Bill Clinton moved into the White House, his lawyers supported the elder Bush in his effort to uphold a side deal he’d cut with the National Archives and Records Administration to allow him to treat his White House emails as personal. At the time, George Stephanopoulos—then the White House communications director—defended the resistance, saying his boss, like Bush, didn't want subsequent, and potentially unfriendly, administrations rooting around in old emails.
The Clinton White House eventually settled the suit, and White House aide John Podesta—now Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman—even invited members of the National Security Archive into the White House to demonstrate how the new system worked. If anyone tried to delete an email, a message would pop up on screen indicating that to do so would be in violation of the PRA.“We were happy with that,” recalls Blanton, who edited a book on the Reagan-Bush email evasion, White House E-Mail: The Top Secret Messages the Reagan/Bush White House Tried to Destroy.Eight years later, in 2003, a whistleblower told the National Security Archive that the George W. Bush White House was no longer saving its emails. The Archive and another watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (which had represented outed CIA agent Valerie Plame in her case against the Bush administration), refiled their original lawsuit.The plaintiffs soon discovered that Bush aides had simply shut down the Clinton automatic email archive, and they identified the start date of the lost emails as January 1, 2003. The White House claimed it had switched to a new server and in the process was unable to maintain an archive—a claim that many found dubious.Bush administration emails could have aided a special prosecutor’s investigation into a White House effort to discredit a diplomat who disagreed with the administration’s fabricated Iraq WMD evidence by outing his CIA agent wife, Plame. Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, who was brought in to investigate that case, said in 2006 that he believed some potentially relevant emails sent by aides in Cheney's office were in the administration's system but he couldn’t get them.
The supposedly lost emails also prevented Congress from fully investigating, in 2007, the politically motivated firing of nine U.S. attorneys. When the Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee subpoenaed related emails, Bush’s attorney general, Alberto Gonzalez, said many were inaccessible or lost on a nongovernmental private server run by the RNC and called gwb43.com. The White House, meanwhile, officially refused to comply with the congressional subpoena.Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) called the president’s actions “Nixonian stonewalling” and at one point took to the floor in exasperation and shouted, “They say they have not been preserved. I don't believe that!” His House counterpart, Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (D-Mich.), said Bush's assertion of executive privilege was unprecedented and displayed “an appalling disregard for the right of the people to know what is going on in their government.”In court in May 2008, administration lawyers contended that the White House had lost three months’ worth of email backups from the initial days of the Iraq War. Bush aides thus evaded a court-ordered deadline to describe the contents of digital backup believed to contain emails deleted in 2003 between March—when the U.S. invaded Iraq—and September. They also refused to give the NSA nonprofit any emails relating to the Iraq War, despite the PRA, blaming a system upgrade that had deleted up to 5 million emails. The plaintiffs eventually contended that the Bush administration knew about the problem in 2005 but did nothing to fix it.Eventually, the Bush White House admitted it had lost 22 million emails, not 5 million. Then, in December 2009—well into Barack Obama’s administration—the White House said it found 22 million emails, dated between 2003 and 2005, that it claimed had been mislabeled. That cache was given to the National Archives, and it and other plaintiffs agreed, on December 14, 2009, to settle their lawsuit. But the emails have not yet been made available to the public.The Senate Judiciary Committee was operating on a different track but having no more luck. In a bipartisan vote in 2008, the committee found White House aides Karl Rove and Joshua Bolten in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with subpoenas in the investigation of the fired U.S. attorneys. The penalties for contempt are fines and possible jail time, but no punishment was ever handed down because a D.C. federal appeals court stayed the Senate’s ruling in October 2008, while the White House appealed. Rove’s lawyer claimed Rove did not “intentionally delete” any emails but was only conducting “the type of routine deletions people make to keep their inboxes orderly,” according to the Associated Press.By then, Obama was weeks away from winning the election, so the Bush administration basically ran out the clock. And neither the Obama administration nor the Senate committee pursued the matter.The committee’s final report on the matter was blunt: “[T]his subversion of the justice system has included lying, misleading, stonewalling and ignoring the Congress in our attempts to find out precisely what happened. The reasons given for these firings were contrived as part of a cover-up, and the stonewalling by the White House is part and parcel of that same effort.”At the time, some journalists and editorialists complained about a lack of transparency on the White House’s part, but The Washington Post, in an editorial, accepted the White House explanation that the emails could have been lost due to flawed IT systems.The mystery of what was in the missing Bush emails and why they went missing is still years away from being solved—if ever. The National Archives now has 220 million emails from the Bush White House, and there is a long backlog of Freedom of Information Act requests already. But not all of the emails will be available to the public until 2021, when the presidential security restrictions elapse. Even then, with currently available archiving and sorting methods, researchers still have years of work to figure out whether Cheney deleted days’ worth of emails around the time of the WMD propaganda campaign that led to war, Blanton says.“To your question of what’s in there—we don't know,” he says. “There was not a commitment at the top for saving it all. Now was that resistance motivated by political reasons? Or was it ‘We gotta save money’?”
Like Leahy, Blanton has doubts that the emails were ever truly “lost,” given that every email exists in two places, with the sender and with the recipient. But unlike watchdog group Judicial Watch, which has been relentless about forcing the State Department to publicly release Hillary Clinton’s emails, Blanton and his fellow researchers have decided not to press their fight for the release of the Bush emails.Blanton says he has no idea whether the Bush email record will be found intact after 2021, when his group will be allowed to do a systematic search and recovery process in the National Archives. “Did they find all of them? We don't know,” he says. “Our hope is that by that time, the government and the National Archives will have much better technology and tools with which to sift and sort that kind of volume.”Blanton says he’s not expecting that kind of upgrade, though. “Their entire budget is less than the cost of a single Marine One helicopter,” he says. “It’s an underfunded orphan.”Meanwhile, the episode has been nearly forgotten by almost everyone but the litigants. A source involved with the stymied congressional investigation recalled the period as “an intense time,” but the Obama administration didn’t encourage any follow-up, devoting its political capital to dealing with the crashing economy rather than investigating the murky doings that took place under his predecessor. Since then, no major media outlet has devoted significant—or, really, any—resources to obtaining the emails, or to finding out what was in them, or what, exactly, the Bush administration was hiding (or losing).
Incidentally, take the polls with a grain of salt, as their methodology can sometimes be a tad wonky - namely the younger crowd, as polls generally rely on landlines, which a lot of the millennial crowd is just dispensing with entirely, making them much harder to reach for opinion polling. Sometimes the polling company forces itself to get the required stats (X-number 18-30, etc.), while others will just do a weighted system, where the handful of 18-30 year-olds they reach essentially make up more of the demographic than they actually represent.
"Why would I inflict myself on somebody else?"538 account for that, they specifically used a selection of online polls that specifically target large numbers of younge people so as to avoid the problem of phone polls.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranSo apparently, the Minnesota DFL actually tried to remove Trump from the state ballot.
You can imagine how that worked out.
State Democratic Party Chairman Ken Martin filed a petition with the Minnesota Supreme Court to strike Trump and running mate Mike Pence. The petition contends Trump’s candidate filing was flawed because the Republican Party failed to properly choose the people who would cast Electoral College votes for their candidate if he wins Minnesota.
A Trump campaign spokesman had no immediate comment. Republican Party Chairman Keith Downey criticized the move as frivolous and says it would disenfranchise voters.
Major-party presidential candidates had until Aug. 29 to gain access to Minnesota’s ballot. Paperwork for both Trump and Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton was filed with room to spare. Seven minor-party candidates also qualified for the ballot after submitting at least 2,000 signatures each.
For Trump and Clinton, their parties had to submit the names of 10 electors and 10 alternates, certifying that they were chosen at the spring state party conventions. In the case of Trump, the Republican Party only selected the 10 electors at its May convention and waited until late August to choose the alternates.
“The Secretary of State accepted the certification and agreed to list Trump and Pence on the ballot despite the fact that Downey’s certification was untrue; the Republican Party’s alternate presidential electors were not nominated by the State Republican Party’s delegate convention called and held under the supervision of the State Republican Party Central Committee as required by Minn. Stat. § 208.03,” the DFL petition reads.
The petition was first reported by blogger Michael Brodkorb, a former deputy Republican Party chairman.
The Supreme Court hasn’t scheduled a hearing in the case but usually moves swiftly to resolve election-related litigation. There is pressure to get it resolved soon: Minnesota’s absentee voting period starts Sept. 23
As someone actually from Minnesota, I'm kind of conflicted. On the one hand, I sort of want to applaud the DFL for trying to virtually force my home state to vote for the only viable candidate. On the other hand, potential attempted violations of Democrocy aside, did they really think this was going to work? Don't get me wrong; I'd be glad if it did, but still.
edited 13th Sep '16 4:42:11 PM by kkhohoho
*facepalm*
Trying to Rules Lawyer out of it, when Trump has been throwing around insinuations that the election would be rigged? I don't care of they're right, there's no way it won't backfire.
There's a thing
going around on more conservative news sites concerning voter fraud. They recorded 194 instances of people voting twice.
While that's obviously wrong and should be condemned, the folks trying to stir up the voting fraud frenzy are ignoring that:
A) they had to combined three different counties to get that number and
B) That only accounts for .004% of their combined population.

@Nightlikeday: He utterly dismantled his opponents in the primary debates where he was actually trying, in part because the moderators simply couldn't stop him from bringing the debates down to reality-TV level shenanigans. I can only hope that doesn't happen in the GE debates.
edited 13th Sep '16 11:48:40 AM by CaptainCapsase