Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 109 (8803 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 11-20-2017 10:20 AM
349 online now:
Coragyps, Diomedes, DrJones*, dwise1, halibut, jar, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (9 members, 340 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: DC85
Post Volume:
Total: 822,689 Year: 27,295/21,208 Month: 1,208/1,714 Week: 51/365 Day: 7/44 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
959697
98
99100Next
Author Topic:   The Trump Presidency
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1456 of 1491 (822463)
10-25-2017 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 1455 by RAZD
10-25-2017 2:36 PM


Re: Trump 2.0? Probably
RAZD writes:

So I'll repeat what I said about that: getting a massive vote in states you have already won the electoral college votes, but failing to win electoral votes in swing states is to my mind a failure to properly manage where the election energy, cashflow, ads, etc was spent. ie - less time in california and more in pennsylvania and michigan could have made a difference. The extra votes were wasted when a few more votes in specific areas were needed.

That's exactly what they tried to do. Pennsylvania was thought to be as much of a lock as California. The same for Michigan. The voter models they were using to tell them where to spend their money was wrong, and no one really knew it was wrong until after the election. What they saw was higher than expected voter turn out in rural areas in some states, with Pennsylvania being a perfect example.

As the old saying goes, hindsight is 20/20.

Added in edit:

Here are some links for the polling data leading up to the election. The polling in both Pennsylvania and Michigan look pretty good for Clinton, especially so in Penn where Republicans hadn't won in quite some time:

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/...nson_vs_stein-6008.html

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/...nson_vs_stein-5964.html

The democrats don't seem to know how to campaign in "off year" elections, letting republicans win in state and federal races for representatives etc.

A lot of that has to do with voter turnout as well. The demographics that tend to vote Republican have traditionally turned out in higher numbers in off year elections.

Going for corporate sponsorship is a huge mistake when your base is working people trying to make ends meet.

Obama was sponsored by large corporations, and he kicked ass.

The more they campaign as "republican lite" the fewer people will be interested, especially in off-years.

Obama was as Republican Lite as it gets. Even his healthcare plan was a Republican plan. Obama crushed it in the voting booth.

I can't help but lean towards the old saw that Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line. Personality has a lot to do with getting elected, and Hillary just flat out lacked personality.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Edited by Taq, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1455 by RAZD, posted 10-25-2017 2:36 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1464 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2017 5:30 PM Taq has responded

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7507
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1457 of 1491 (822464)
10-25-2017 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1448 by Percy
10-24-2017 8:47 PM


Re: the attribution
You're using the electorate's views as a proxy for your own. It's really your own views you're talking about.

It's really the electorates. Your opinion is erroneous. If the electorate suggests the Democrats should swing more to the right - if the indication is there are more votes to pick up on the right than would be dropped to the left, then that's the way the Democrats should go in order to win the election.

But you think such a radar must exist only because you're hoping for candidates closer to your views.

The radar exists, I'm just arguing for making it more precise. I'm hoping it will better detect if and when the Party swings leftwards but I accept willingly the opposite can and occasionally at least, will, happen.

And Clinton did win the most votes in the election.

You've confused the point. I was talking about the Democrat nominee who, once nominated would win the most that could be won by any given Democrat candidate. We can't know who this would be in a given election, though we may have opinions, in part because the nomination system essentially obfuscates information. My main point was general to any election, not simply this specific one.

This election is interesting as means to discussing this particular issue because the margins were small, the vocal defectors on the left seem significant in number, it was recent and the second place candidate in the primaries did comparably well - 55:43 - it may not have been the case, but it is possible that an approval system could be sufficient to swing this to the second place candidate, and this might have translated to a different main election result given the small margins in said election.

So as I already described, Sander's received less votes in the Democratic primaries than Clinton, and he carried the additional baggage of being a democratic socialist, but you think I'm just making up what would have happened had he been the Democratic candidate.

Yes I do think that. Because in this scenario he would have gained the approval of more of the Democrat party primary voters, ie., gained more votes in the primaries than Clinton. Since that system wasn't used, and since that result did not take place, you just invented the outcome in the Presidential election should it happen.

Unless you have access to alternate realities?

Not only possible, but given what we know by far the most likely.

So you think that if the majority of the DNC approved of Sanders over Clinton, they'd lose more votes than if the candidate with lower approval was nominated. I imagine many Clinton supporters may go to Trump if they couldn't stand Sanders which would increase Trump's count where Sanders supporters may have more veered towards the left where the votes don't have as big an impact. But then, you've not really discussed numbers whenever I've asked about them so I'm having to imagine where you think those votes would go.

It goes up all the time but not every time - you say such strange things sometimes that it makes me wonder if there isn't some difference between British and American English that is causing a communication problem.

I doubt the phrase 'all the time' meaning 'often', 'regularly', 'routinely', 'frequently' is only a British thing.

We don't seem to be getting anywhere.

Can we agree that the fact that vote numbers go up, by the degree that they do, with the regularity they do, means that absolute vote numbers are not a suitable tool of comparison with over a century of vote results? That one can only make sensible comparisons like this if absolute numbers remain highly stable, which in the four year jumpiness of elections in a country with population growing between 1.5% and 0.7% per year over the past 50 years? Especially given that this means the population has doubled in the last 50 years? That this means percentages are better tools for doing historical comparisons?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1448 by Percy, posted 10-24-2017 8:47 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1460 by Percy, posted 10-26-2017 9:32 AM Modulous has responded

    
ringo
Member
Posts: 13874
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.6


Message 1458 of 1491 (822466)
10-25-2017 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1450 by Phat
10-25-2017 10:21 AM


Re: Trump 2.0?
Phat writes:

I'm more concerned what the current possibilities are that Trump could conceivably win a second term....


It was inconceivable that he could win in 2016. Our conceptions are clearly not adequate to deal with a cannon as loose as him.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1450 by Phat, posted 10-25-2017 10:21 AM Phat has not yet responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16158
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1459 of 1491 (822484)
10-25-2017 8:29 PM
Reply to: Message 1454 by Modulous
10-25-2017 2:15 PM


Re: the attribution
Modulous writes:

As far as the election - the electoral college is all that matters. Analysis of the results takes into account all sorts of numbers, and that's fine and I've employed both State popular vote and nationwide popular vote in my doing this.
I have indeed discussed said popular vote and I have indeed considered causes.

I think it's when you say things like, "The popular vote number has no bearing on the Presidency," (Message 1416) that leads people to think you believe the electoral college outcome is somehow not connected to the popular vote in any important way. So they follow a train of argument based on that, but that's not what you meant, so of course confusion results.

That's why I suggested that you and Rrhain don't need to argue over nomenclature (Message 1428). You both know the difference between the electoral college and the popular vote, and you both know that one is a direct function of the other.

I was also trying to suggest that it seemed to Rrhain (and often to me, too) that you appeared to be placing all the importance on the electoral college and none on the popular vote. The way you phrase things often suggests this, so it's an interpretation that's hard to escape.

We all understand that the electoral college outcome determines who becomes president, but I think that each time you repeat something like (sic), "Only the electoral college determines the president," that it's not going to be interpreted the way you intend, that people are going to think you're ignoring the connection to the popular vote, and you're going to have to explain yet again that you're not ignoring that connection, and then we'll be back on the merry-go-round you allude to later in the message.

What causes do you think we should discuss?

Regarding how the popular vote maps onto the electoral college? The likelihood of further discussion on this topic resulting in progress seems small, so maybe we should just let it lie.

To introduce fresh information to the discussion I present gaming the electoral college

Interesting, but we already haven't agreed on much, so adding something new to the mix doesn't seem like a good idea.

You've been doing that, too

By your own words then, I cannot possibly be "Fixating on just the electoral college results while refusing to consider what happened to cause those results".

You *are* arguing both, just not at the same time. When you argue one it often seems that you do it to the exclusion of the other. It feels as if you're holding too opposite opinions at the same time.

Yes, we agree that voting for someone other than Clinton while wanting Clinton to win resulted in ironic consequences for those people who did this.

I think you were just trying to restate my position, but this actually misstates it. Were you maybe trying to say, "Yes, we agree that voting for someone other than Clinton while *expecting* Clinton would win *anyway* resulted in ironic consequences for those people who did this."?

It really boils down to you saying that the consequences of a Trump presidency today outweigh the benefits of the strategy of protest voting.

Yeah, I guess you could say that, and I think it's a strong position. Certainly every day brings more "consequences of a Trump presidency." He's not just worse than we imagined, he's worse than we could ever have imagined. It does not appear that there's a corner in Trump's future that he will turn and begin to become more rational, more constructive, more compassionate, less vindictive, and less vengeful. The trend is in the opposite direction. He's clearly becoming a worse and worse danger in many realms of the nation and the world. If you haven't yet read Jeff Flake's speech to the Senate I still recommend it. I link to it in a message above.

Very, very few in the general political neighborhood of the Democrats would have wanted to show their dislike of Clinton by registering a protest vote that got Trump elected.

I've asked before; you seem certain of this point. You might well be right, but do you have anything to back it up with?

It's just simple logic. I agree that there are confounding factors, like irrational voters and voters whose main issues don't break down along the familiar Democrat/Republican lines. I used to feel that factors like these were small enough to be safely ignored, but after learning that 10% of Sanders supporters voted for Trump I'm no longer so sure.

Then I will reply again that wouldn't it be great if the DNC used a better one than the Republicans?

We've covered this ground before, and my answer hasn't changed. I'm not a Democrat (neither are you in your role as a hypothetical American, and neither is Sanders). I hope both parties bring the best possible candidates forward.

I disagree that "her absolute number of votes is not important" and that "the margin had more meaning" in 2016. I think both are significant factors.

By 'important' I was referring to the context of comparing her to historical elections. That she got more votes than Reagan isn't meaningful. If she had gotten less votes than Reagan - that'd be an meaningful point in a historical comparison.

True, but I thought I was clear about this earlier. This time explaining using your example, you don't want to go back as far as Reagan, that was over a quarter century ago, but you can probably go back the last 5 or 6 elections without population increases overwhelming the comparison.

We can also raise the point that Trump's popular vote margin as a percent was very small relative to history, which is also meaningful - in the context of Trump's mandate of the people etc. His electoral college percent was also pretty small compared historically, which also speaks to his mandate regarding the States.

True.

Except that it has been shown false. You conclude that "too many" people (however many that is) didn't like her when the reality is that it is just where 0.05% of the total votes were cast that made the difference. Conclusions like yours from such tiny numbers can't be justified.

Well, given that her Supporters lived where they live, and we're not imagining a hypothetical scenario of voters that could have just moved around -if 0.1% more had liked her enough to vote, either globally or locally in those right places - her victory would have been assured. So again, I don't see how it is false.

It's false because the number of voters vary randomly by far greater percentages than 0.05%. It's false because it was only the week before the election that Comey reopened the email server investigation. It's false because it was Clinton who was targeted by Russian generated fake news.

Speaking of fake news, you're probably not even aware of the extent to which it influenced your opinions about Clinton. I know my own opinions were affected. It wasn't that I believed any specific story or stories, and in fact I was probably unaware of many of them since I'm not a social media user, but I do remember being aware of so much negative Clinton news that it felt like one of those "where there's smoke there's fire" situations. I don't think anyone was immune to the flood of fake news.

My point has been that had she had more support she could have lessened the impact that luck would have had.

This is true.

I've argued that in order to get over the bumpiness of the electoral college, or generally of luck, she needed more.

Yes, more would definitely have helped.

The question one is left wondering then is, what percent of Clinton's primary supporters would have voted for Trump had Sanders won the nomination?

On a rational level I know that some Clinton voters would have switched to Trump were Sanders the Democratic nominee, but I can't ignore the insanity that is Trump and so can't see how anyone in the political vicinity of the Democrats and in their right mind could ever vote for Trump.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1454 by Modulous, posted 10-25-2017 2:15 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1462 by Modulous, posted 10-26-2017 3:43 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16158
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1460 of 1491 (822489)
10-26-2017 9:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1457 by Modulous
10-25-2017 2:49 PM


Re: the attribution
Modulous writes:

It's really the electorates. Your opinion is erroneous.

This subdiscussion began when you said in Message 1404 in reference to the Democrats selecting a better candidate in 2020:

Modulous in Message 1404 writes:

So conceivably whoever that is, may well have been a strong enough pick to do better than Clinton.

That's your opinion, not the electorate's. You hope there's a type of "radar" available in the form of an improved primary process that will identify this person. And you hope that because you want the Democrats to select a candidate that you can vote for. And that makes no sense because you're not really a Democrat - they're too far to the right for you. What you actually hope for is what Sander's (also not a Democrat) was trying to do, come in from the far left and win the Democratic nomination.

What you really want, and the opinion you have that we're really talking about, is a political party of national prominence that is a fair degree to the left of the Democrats.

The radar exists, I'm just arguing for making it more precise.

Well, maybe those are the words you're saying, but what you really want is a radar that's biased toward the left.

I'm hoping it will better detect if and when the Party swings leftwards but I accept willingly the opposite can and occasionally at least, will, happen.

Yes, you consider a gradual leftward swing inevitable, with the occasional setback.

...it was recent and the second place candidate in the primaries did comparably well - 55:43...

60/40 by delegate count, which is analogous to the electoral college - and that's all that's important, right?

I doubt the phrase 'all the time' meaning 'often', 'regularly', 'routinely', 'frequently' is only a British thing.

D'oh! Sorry, my interpretation of how you were using the phrase must have gone astray somehow.

We don't seem to be getting anywhere.

Can we agree that the fact that vote numbers go up, by the degree that they do, with the regularity they do, means that absolute vote numbers are not a suitable tool of comparison with over a century of vote results?

When I said we don't seem to be getting anywhere I was referring to far more than just this numbers thing, but about this specifically, yes, of course, I said as much in my previous message.

That this means percentages are better tools for doing historical comparisons?

Yes, of course. The statement about Clinton receiving the 2nd most vote total in history was a response to the charge that "too many" disliked her, which was not a statement expressed as a percentage. Obviously many liked her plenty well enough to vote for her.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1457 by Modulous, posted 10-25-2017 2:49 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1461 by Modulous, posted 10-26-2017 2:15 PM Percy has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7507
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1461 of 1491 (822500)
10-26-2017 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 1460 by Percy
10-26-2017 9:32 AM


Re: the attribution
This subdiscussion began when you said in Message 1404 in reference to the Democrats selecting a better candidate in 2020...That's your opinion, not the electorate's.

By doing better, I mean 'get more votes'. To get more votes you need the electorate to get behind you. It's very much the electorate to which I am referring. If they want my vote they need to push to the left, but my vote (and the votes of others with similar opinions) may not be all that important to victory.

You hope there's a type of "radar" available in the form of an improved primary process that will identify this person. And you hope that because you want the Democrats to select a candidate that you can vote for. And that makes no sense because you're not really a Democrat - they're too far to the right for you.

I would like the Democrat Party to move leftwards as they are the leftmost major party, naturally. But the radar I am talking about is one which better assesses, not my view, but where the votes will fall. I would certainly hope that the electorate is more left in 2020, but that's not material to whether a better system should be implemented.

Well, maybe those are the words you're saying, but what you really want is a radar that's biased toward the left.

No. I want the electorate to be biased towards the left and for a radar to pick that up. But if it is biased to the right, the radar should equally pick that up. I'm not sure why you are taking my explicitly saying this repeatedly and deciding you know my position better, but please - here it is again:

The approval method selects the candidate that is approved of by the most primary voters. This can't be left biased, since it is not given that the primary voters approve mostly of the leftmost candidate.

Yes, you consider a gradual leftward swing inevitable, with the occasional setback.

That's right...and?

60/40 by delegate count, which is analogous to the electoral college - and that's all that's important, right?

For victory in the present DNC system, yes it is.

But that's not really relevant to what I was talking about, which is using the Primary voters' approval to approximate the electorate's approval.

D'oh! Sorry, my interpretation of how you were using the phrase must have gone astray somehow.

*hat tip*

Yes, of course. The statement about Clinton receiving the 2nd most vote total in history was a response to the charge that "too many" disliked her, which was not a statement expressed as a percentage. Obviously many liked her plenty well enough to vote for her.

Naturally - plenty of people voted for. An awful lot of them. Too many did not vote for her to pull her out of the risky marginal zone where luck and the college become factors that can confound expectations. The 'in history' part of the claim was where my objection lay. If the claim had been 'she got many votes' I'd have certainly not argued with you. I'd have not argued with 'she got the most votes'. The 'in history' bit was the sticking point.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1460 by Percy, posted 10-26-2017 9:32 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1465 by Percy, posted 10-27-2017 9:00 AM Modulous has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7507
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1462 of 1491 (822501)
10-26-2017 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1459 by Percy
10-25-2017 8:29 PM


Re: the attribution
That's why I suggested that you and Rrhain don't need to argue over nomenclature (Message 1428). You both know the difference between the electoral college and the popular vote, and you both know that one is a direct function of the other.

I was also trying to suggest that it seemed to Rrhain (and often to me, too) that you appeared to be placing all the importance on the electoral college and none on the popular vote. The way you phrase things often suggests this, so it's an interpretation that's hard to escape.

Can we agree that the statement 'Clinton won the election' is false and move on, then?

Regarding how the popular vote maps onto the electoral college? The likelihood of further discussion on this topic resulting in progress seems small, so maybe we should just let it lie.

As you like. Just don't criticize me for not addressing causes if you demur from discussing them when I explicitly do, please.

Interesting, but we already haven't agreed on much, so adding something new to the mix doesn't seem like a good idea.

Again, as you like. I thought we had some area of agreement in this area, but if you don't want to discuss new things, and you want to avoid going over the same things again, it does rather limit us.

You *are* arguing both, just not at the same time. When you argue one it often seems that you do it to the exclusion of the other.

I think this may be an artefact of you taking my arguments one at a time in exclusion to others - and not attempting to bind my positions together into an overarching position.

It feels as if you're holding too opposite opinions at the same time.

I don't feel they are opposing. Do you really see them as opposing? Let me condense them

The election is determined by the electoral college. Trump won this.

Clinton winning the popular vote but losing the election is as banal a point as saying 'the electoral college exists'.

However, give her popular advantage only a small number of extra votes may have shifted the electoral college results.

In order to be assured of victory you need a good margin. 2% is not sufficient. 3% is not sufficient - though historically it has worked it comes with some very narrow results in key States. 5% is probably enough to have a confident win, though not guaranteed, given the correlation between winning the Presidency and popular votes.

A different candidate may have earned more votes in the Presidential election, achieving that approximately 5% margin.

That possibility suggests a different selection method is something to consider

Or perhaps a change in the distribution of a State's electoral votes - this won't eradicate the bumpiness, but it reduces the the importance of swing states which seems a good idea.

I don't vote against candidates, I vote for them.

However, I will consider voting for candidates of lefter major parties if they are left of the prior candidate to encourage this trend.

Otherwise I will vote in such a way as to make clear that votes were dropped and approximately where so as to make visible to Party analysts where votes might be picked up next time.

I think you were just trying to restate my position, but this actually misstates it. Were you maybe trying to say, "Yes, we agree that voting for someone other than Clinton while *expecting* Clinton would win *anyway* resulted in ironic consequences for those people who did this."?

No, I said it the way I meant it. Are you saying you disagree with the area of agreement I attempted to find? But yes, that's seems ironic too.

If you haven't yet read Jeff Flake's speech to the Senate I still recommend it. I link to it in a message above.

I read it. It's a good speech. I disagree with Moose regarding the running from a fight type characterisation. Though there is merit in staying and fighting - there is also a power in saying 'I shall not be in a government that has that man Presiding'.

It's just simple logic

Hrm. I'm not seeing the logic. It seems seated in assumptions or opinions about the electorate. Without an empirical backing, logic has the habit of being used to confirm what you believed, rather than discovering truth. That's why the rationalists ended up making way for the rational empiricists as the preferred philosophy.

True, but I thought I was clear about this earlier. This time explaining using your example, you don't want to go back as far as Reagan, that was over a quarter century ago, but you can probably go back the last 5 or 6 elections without population increases overwhelming the comparison.

5 maybe - which is what I did earlier. She beat both of Dubya's, and came behind both of Obamas. In this light - it looks quite a bit less impressive. Going back to Bill Clinton and the US population was 270 million - some 50 million less than today. So it definitely breaks down by this point. The population was still under 300million for the Dubya elections.

On a rational level I know that some Clinton voters would have switched to Trump were Sanders the Democratic nominee, but I can't ignore the insanity that is Trump and so can't see how anyone in the political vicinity of the Democrats and in their right mind could ever vote for Trump.

Indeed. One also wonders then if many of Clinton's votes were a function of her opponent - from those that were voting against Trump.

As generally unpopular the word 'social' is in US discourse, I expect Sanders may have also done much better than normal expectations due merely to the opponent in question. Against a more reasonable Republican I'd predict Sanders would have done worse.

That 10% of Sanders is nearly 1.5 million votes to subtract from Trump and give to Sanders - which is certainly significant. That said - the States Sanders won in the primaries {where most of those supporters were obviously} are quite well correlated with the States Clinton won in the Presidential election so it may have turned into a bigger popular vote but still a loss of the electoral college! Pennsylvania and Ohio are exceptions to this - notably, so that's something to consider in the analysis.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1459 by Percy, posted 10-25-2017 8:29 PM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1466 by Percy, posted 10-27-2017 9:45 AM Modulous has responded

    
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1819
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 1463 of 1491 (822503)
10-26-2017 4:07 PM


GOP factoid
Since 1875 the GOP has won the POTUS electoral college 4 times while losing the popular vote. 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016.

The Democrats have never won this way. The score is 4-0 so far.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

    
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19217
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.4


(2)
Message 1464 of 1491 (822505)
10-26-2017 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 1456 by Taq
10-25-2017 2:46 PM


Re: Trump 2.0? Probably
I can't help but lean towards the old saw that Democrats fall in love and Republicans fall in line. Personality has a lot to do with getting elected, and Hillary just flat out lacked personality.

Well she had a negative image long before November.

That's exactly what they tried to do. Pennsylvania was thought to be as much of a lock as California. The same for Michigan. The voter models they were using to tell them where to spend their money was wrong, ...

Exactly, the model was wrong because they didn't look at rural working people and rural unemployed -- so Trump picked them up. Especially when you factor in Hillary's comments to the coal miners -- that was a major mistake. The rust belt was more Trump than Hillary because she didn't have anything for them other than more years of Obama II, when they got nothing to bail them out. Catering to Wall Street over people was her biggest mistake.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1456 by Taq, posted 10-25-2017 2:46 PM Taq has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1469 by Taq, posted 10-27-2017 5:09 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 1470 by ramoss, posted 10-27-2017 6:07 PM RAZD has responded

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 16158
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1465 of 1491 (822533)
10-27-2017 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 1461 by Modulous
10-26-2017 2:15 PM


Re: the attribution
Modulous writes:

By doing better, I mean 'get more votes'. To get more votes you need the electorate to get behind you. It's very much the electorate to which I am referring.

The electorate produces the election result, but that's obvious and not what we're talking about. Your opinion, what we're really talking about, is that Clinton was a weaker candidate than Sanders and that a better primary process would have selected Sanders who you believe had a better chance of beating Trump.

But the radar I am talking about is one which better assesses, not my view, but where the votes will fall.

Well, sure, we all want that, but your criticism of the current process and the way you assess evidence is rooted in the fact that you think you know a process that would have selected the "right" candidate. Would you be pushing this same process if you believe it would have selected the "wrong" candidate? You mentioned IRV voting earlier, which has strengths that approval voting does not, since approval voting can be gamed by the voters (for example, by knowing that making a second choice may weaken the chances of their first choice) and the possibility that the majority's top choice could lose. For reasons like these I just can't escape the notion that you're pushing approval voting because you think it would have yielded the results you wanted.

No. I want the electorate to be biased towards the left and for a radar to pick that up. But if it is biased to the right, the radar should equally pick that up. I'm not sure why you are taking my explicitly saying this repeatedly and deciding you know my position better, but please - here it is again:

I'm repeating this because your position seems driven more by your belief that approval voting would have yielded the "right" candidate for you rather than by your desire for a more accurate primary system. It's not that I don't understand what you're saying. It's that I think your opinions are influenced by what you believe the "right" outcome should have been.

Yes, you consider a gradual leftward swing inevitable, with the occasional setback.

That's right...and?

It's not inevitable, especially if leftward swings are wealth driven.

60/40 by delegate count, which is analogous to the electoral college - and that's all that's important, right?

For victory in the present DNC system, yes it is.

But that's not really relevant to what I was talking about, which is using the Primary voters' approval to approximate the electorate's approval.

How is it not relevant? Don't you want an accurate reflection of voter desire at the convention level, too? Not that changes are possible in even the remotely near future, but you want to be consistent.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1461 by Modulous, posted 10-26-2017 2:15 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1468 by Modulous, posted 10-27-2017 2:26 PM Percy has responded

    
Percy
Member
Posts: 16158
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.7


Message 1466 of 1491 (822538)
10-27-2017 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 1462 by Modulous
10-26-2017 3:43 PM


Re: the attribution
Modulous writes:

Can we agree that the statement 'Clinton won the election' is false and move on, then?

Sure.

Regarding how the popular vote maps onto the electoral college? The likelihood of further discussion on this topic resulting in progress seems small, so maybe we should just let it lie.

As you like. Just don't criticize me for not addressing causes if you demur from discussing them when I explicitly do, please.

You asked me, "What causes do you think we should discuss?" in my response to me saying how often "you've stated that it was the electoral college Clinton lost and that that's all that matters, not the popular vote." That wasn't a criticism of you "for not addressing causes." I truly doubt that a further investment in time discussing that subtopic would be fruitful. That's all I was saying.

I'm not trying to unilaterally shut down discussion of that subtopic. If you feel differently then say something that hints at an avenue of progress.

Again, as you like. I thought we had some area of agreement in this area, but if you don't want to discuss new things, and you want to avoid going over the same things again, it does rather limit us.

Uh, okay. But haven't we both already made our points pretty clear? Isn't this already a pretty long digression from the main topic? I mean, I'm game for further discussion of the subtopic if there's more to discuss, but getting even more into the details of the electoral college seems pretty distant from that subtopic.

I think this may be an artefact of you taking my arguments one at a time in exclusion to others - and not attempting to bind my positions together into an overarching position.

I see the opposite, and likely the truth lies somewhere in the middle.

I don't vote against candidates, I vote for them.

2016 was the wrong election for protest votes.

I think you were just trying to restate my position, but this actually misstates it. Were you maybe trying to say, "Yes, we agree that voting for someone other than Clinton while *expecting* Clinton would win *anyway* resulted in ironic consequences for those people who did this."?

No, I said it the way I meant it. Are you saying you disagree with the area of agreement I attempted to find?

Yes, of course I disagree with your attempt to outline an area of agreement, though I appreciate the effort. But it doesn't even make sense for someone to vote "for someone other than Clinton while wanting Clinton". My rewording of what you said accurately reflects my opinion.

It's just simple logic

Hrm. I'm not seeing the logic. It seems seated in assumptions or opinions about the electorate. Without an empirical backing, logic has the habit of being used to confirm what you believed, rather than discovering truth. That's why the rationalists ended up making way for the rational empiricists as the preferred philosophy.

I think you *do* see the logic, you're just raising a spurious complaint. I can firm up the phrasing a little bit: Very, very few in the general political neighborhood of the Democrats who were thinking rationally would have wanted to show their dislike of Clinton by registering a protest vote that helped contribute to Trump's election.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1462 by Modulous, posted 10-26-2017 3:43 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1467 by Modulous, posted 10-27-2017 1:47 PM Percy has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7507
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1467 of 1491 (822562)
10-27-2017 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 1466 by Percy
10-27-2017 9:45 AM


Re: the attribution
ou asked me, "What causes do you think we should discuss?" in my response to me saying how often "you've stated that it was the electoral college Clinton lost and that that's all that matters, not the popular vote." That wasn't a criticism of you "for not addressing causes."

quote:
Let me explain again. Fixating on just the electoral college results while refusing to consider what happened to cause those results ignores important causative factors.

But it doesn't even make sense for someone to vote "for someone other than Clinton while wanting Clinton"

It doesn't? I thought your point was that there were a bunch of people that voted for someone other Clinton as a protest even though they wanted Clinton to win and thought that a protest vote was safe because they expected her to.

It kind of ruins the irony if they voted against her, expected her to win, but didn't want her to win. I mean, I suppose academically there's an irony to mine there - but this group includes a large percentage of Trump voters so they got what they intended in the immediate sense.

I think you *do* see the logic, you're just raising a spurious complaint. I can firm up the phrasing a little bit: Very, very few in the general political neighborhood of the Democrats who were thinking rationally would have wanted to show their dislike of Clinton by registering a protest vote that helped contribute to Trump's election.

The original issue is, of all the protest voters how does this number compare to the number that thought a protest vote was 'safe'?

The point being - were there enough 'principled' protest voters to have made a difference?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1466 by Percy, posted 10-27-2017 9:45 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1471 by Percy, posted 10-28-2017 7:54 AM Modulous has responded

    
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7507
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 1468 of 1491 (822563)
10-27-2017 2:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1465 by Percy
10-27-2017 9:00 AM


Re: the attribution
The electorate produces the election result, but that's obvious and not what we're talking about

I am explicitly talking about the electorate. I've said so many times. My opinion does not decide the election. My point was that there may be other selection methods that find candidates that will get more votes - whether that be moving to the right or the left.

Your opinion, what we're really talking about, is that Clinton was a weaker candidate than Sanders and that a better primary process would have selected Sanders who you believe had a better chance of beating Trump.

My opinion is actually that this is a possibility in this particular election. And only a possibility. A possibility that an alternate selection system might have provided us with illumination on. A better selection process might not have selected Sanders. There's plenty of reason to suppose it wouldn't. It might have, but it might not.

Well, sure, we all want that, but your criticism of the current process and the way you assess evidence is rooted in the fact that you think you know a process that would have selected the "right" candidate. Would you be pushing this same process if you believe it would have selected the "wrong" candidate?

The 'right' candidate is the one that gets the maximum number of votes possible in the Presidential election for that Party at that time. If it can be shown that the particular method I have highlighted does worse at doing this, I will recant.

If by 'right' you mean, heh, 'left'. And by 'wrong' you mean, ahem 'right' then I would still push this process, yes.

You mentioned IRV voting earlier, which has strengths that approval voting does not, since approval voting can be gamed by the voters (for example, by knowing that making a second choice may weaken the chances of their first choice) and the possibility that the majority's top choice could lose

Sure there are problems. I am assuming that the Primary Voters have the goal of selecting the candidate who will garner the most votes in the Presidential Election, but this is not an entirely safe assumption. There are likely many who will try game the system to select the candidate they believe will get the most votes, or at least, be most aligned to them.

IRV may also be good - but only if there are multiple nominees running. In a two person race it's not much different than the present system. I also don't think it detects the danger of protest voting {or non-voting for a disliked candidate} in the Presidential election either, which was the reason I raised Approval Voting.

It's not inevitable, especially if leftward swings are wealth driven.

I think I already agreed with this. It's not like anything in my view relies on the leftward trend continuing. I just expect it will.

How is it not relevant? Don't you want an accurate reflection of voter desire at the convention level, too? Not that changes are possible in even the remotely near future, but you want to be consistent.

Feel free to explain your reasoning. My point was that there wasn't much in it regarding the primary voters which suggests a change in selection process has a reasonable chance of impacting the results of the Primaries. The pledged delegates follow this result - so if the Primary results been different, the pledged delegate results would also likely be different. Superdelegates complicate this, although new DNC rules turn many of those effectively into pledged delegates anyway.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1465 by Percy, posted 10-27-2017 9:00 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1473 by Percy, posted 10-28-2017 8:58 AM Modulous has responded

    
Taq
Member
Posts: 7263
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 1469 of 1491 (822567)
10-27-2017 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1464 by RAZD
10-26-2017 5:30 PM


Re: Trump 2.0? Probably
RAZD writes:

Well she had a negative image long before November.

As does every single politician. None of them are perfect.

Exactly, the model was wrong because they didn't look at rural working people and rural unemployed -- so Trump picked them up.

They did look at rural working people and the rural unemployed. What they didn't predict, and no one predicted, was that voter turnout in those demographics would be much higher than in previous years. Trump had them the entire time.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1464 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2017 5:30 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
ramoss
Member
Posts: 3046
Joined: 08-11-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


(1)
Message 1470 of 1491 (822569)
10-27-2017 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1464 by RAZD
10-26-2017 5:30 PM


Re: Trump 2.0? Probably
There was also voter suppression going on, for example, the new laws in Wisconson stopped many groups that tend to vote democratic from voting.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1464 by RAZD, posted 10-26-2017 5:30 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1472 by RAZD, posted 10-28-2017 8:04 AM ramoss has not yet responded

  
RewPrev1
...
959697
98
99100Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017