djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,403
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 6, 2016 12:26:33 GMT -5
Why do you identify NH as being so significant as it only has 4 EVs? for many reasons. here are a few: 1) first of all, NH is the most elastic electorate in the country. if bad shit is going to happen to Clinton, it is going to happen in NH FIRST. and, on the other side of that argument, if good shit is going to happen to her, it is going to happen there first. 2) second, it votes early. so, we out here in reefer land get to see what those straight New Englanders do before we put out our joints and go vote. 3) the demographics in NH are quite similar to those of the US. if Clinton wins by 1% in NH, she will probably lose all of the tossup states. if she wins by 4%, she will probably win all of the tossup states. 4) because IF Clinton loses all of the tossup states, AND NH, she will lose the election. it is really that simple. NH is clearly crucial in this election.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,403
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 6, 2016 12:28:27 GMT -5
Really? You don't say! I wouldn't have known that without your assistance! Question is: do they have more ACTUAL VOTERS in them? This is part of why I detest the whole Electoral College thing. Yes, they have more people... but population is no guarantee of number of votes cast. If we want to keep the EC, it should be changed to proportionate to actual votes CAST in each state. Keep the number of electors the same, for fairness... but apportion them based on TOTAL votes cast in each state (no matter who won or lost) as a percentage of the whole count for the entire country. That way the "bias" would be to the VOTERS and not to the people that don't care enough to vote (heck, maybe doing that would cause more people TO vote) ETA: for the record, the first two sentences were sarcastic. In 2012, 13.2M ballots were counted in California. That is more than Wyoming, West Virginia, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Alabama, Idaho, Nebraska, Arkansas, Kentucky, South Dakota, Louisana and Montana combined. Those 12 states counted 12.6 million ballots, and are the top 12 states listed as Trump's on fivethirtyeight. They control 61 EVs, vs CA's 55. Your logic does not hold water. Also, dividing the electoral votes in those 12 states by the number of voters means there was 1 vote for every 206 thousand voters. Yet in California, there was 1 electoral vote for every 240 thousand voters. So, proportionally, the people in those 12 states had more influence than the voters of California. If we do away with the electoral college, the game would be played very differently, but I am not sure it would give the republicans the results they want. the EC absolutely favors the GOP.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,615
|
Post by billisonboard on Nov 6, 2016 12:31:41 GMT -5
the EC actually favors the small states. everyone knows that, right? I would say, "wrong", not everyone knows that.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Nov 6, 2016 18:06:37 GMT -5
I'm going to be avoiding YMAM for the next four days.
Tomorrow is going to be last-minute convince-yourself-your-candidate-is-going-to-win hysteria like we've never seen.
Tuesday is going to be comment-on-every-twitch-in-the-ballot-counts-and-exit-polls hysteria like we've never seen.
Wednesday is going to be pandemonium. There won't be a soul on the board distinguishable from either a happy or an angry drunk. Weeping, screaming, jeering, fawning over speeches, stale jokes about Paul's perennial overconfidence. At least one rambling, syrupy post about the awesomeness of Ms. Clinton being elected by Dezi, happy, Optimist, GG. I don't even want to think about what Weltz will be like. As soon as Mr. Trump officially becomes a "loser", she'll go off like a nuclear bomb.
Thursday will be the first day that Clinton supporters' gloating over Mr. Trump's demise turns to calls for unity behind the new president, burying the hatchet, working together. By the latter part of the day, most will have finally clued into the fact that Republicans have precisely zero intention of doing so (which will inexplicably surprise a lot of posters), and they'll wind up as enraged as Mr. Trump's supporters.
I'll log in on Friday. The admin bubble will have "28" next to it. I'll have PM's from at least two posters quitting the board and thanking me for the discussions over the years. The post-election hysteria won't nearly be over, but as long as there's a tiny bit of oxygen, I'll brave it.
I'll be on until I go to bed tonight, but I might as well make it official now:
Supporters of Ms. Clinton: congratulations on your candidate's win.
Supporters of Mr. Trump: my condolences for your candidate's loss.
YMAM Mods: sorry for ducking out on you, but I don't do mass hysteria.
Everyone: see you on Friday.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,480
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 6, 2016 18:13:19 GMT -5
LOL Virgil ShowlionI'm bracing myself for the unexpected embarrassed voters. The ones in the swing (or lightly committed) states that are ashamed to speak the words "I am voting for Trump" and will silently put in their ballots, and change the whole thing. I am also secretly hoping there is a similiar group out there who is ashamed to admit they are voting for Hillary, and some pink state will flip blue. It would be hilarious!
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,122
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Nov 6, 2016 18:19:22 GMT -5
Why do you identify NH as being so significant as it only has 4 EVs? for many reasons. here are a few: 1) first of all, NH is the most elastic electorate in the country. if bad shit is going to happen to Clinton, it is going to happen in NH FIRST. and, on the other side of that argument, if good shit is going to happen to her, it is going to happen there first. 2) second, it votes early. so, we out here in reefer land get to see what those straight New Englanders do before we put out our joints and go vote. 3) the demographics in NH are quite similar to those of the US. if Clinton wins by 1% in NH, she will probably lose all of the tossup states. if she wins by 4%, she will probably win all of the tossup states. 4) because IF Clinton loses all of the tossup states, AND NH, she will lose the election. it is really that simple. NH is clearly crucial in this election. so 1 and 2 - canary in the coal mine. 3 - a stratified random sample. 4 - bellwether ?
|
|
Rukh O'Rorke
Senior Associate
Joined: Jul 4, 2016 13:31:15 GMT -5
Posts: 10,122
|
Post by Rukh O'Rorke on Nov 6, 2016 18:34:32 GMT -5
In 2012, 13.2M ballots were counted in California. That is more than Wyoming, West Virginia, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Alabama, Idaho, Nebraska, Arkansas, Kentucky, South Dakota, Louisana and Montana combined. Those 12 states counted 12.6 million ballots, and are the top 12 states listed as Trump's on fivethirtyeight. They control 61 EVs, vs CA's 55. Your logic does not hold water. Also, dividing the electoral votes in those 12 states by the number of voters means there was 1 vote for every 206 thousand voters. Yet in California, there was 1 electoral vote for every 240 thousand voters. So, proportionally, the people in those 12 states had more influence than the voters of California. If we do away with the electoral college, the game would be played very differently, but I am not sure it would give the republicans the results they want. the EC absolutely favors the GOP. I've never really followed the polls closely before. At what point do the pollers stop polling? right up until exit polling? or do they take a break?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,749
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 6, 2016 18:36:13 GMT -5
Bruce Springsteen will be performing during Clinton's rally tomorrow night in Philadelphia.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Nov 6, 2016 18:37:58 GMT -5
Bruce Springsteen will be performing during Clinton's rally tomorrow night in Philadelphia. and Jon Bon Jovi!!!!!!!
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Nov 6, 2016 18:39:46 GMT -5
the EC absolutely favors the GOP. I've never really followed the polls closely before. At what point do the pollers stop polling? right up until exit polling? or do they take a break? I'm doing market research right now and all our vendors are like "Can we start November 9? How about the 10th so we have a chance to sleep?"
|
|
Pants
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 27, 2010 19:26:44 GMT -5
Posts: 7,579
|
Post by Pants on Nov 6, 2016 18:42:32 GMT -5
I'm going to be avoiding YMAM for the next four days. Tomorrow is going to be last-minute convince-yourself-your-candidate-is-going-to-win hysteria like we've never seen. Tuesday is going to be comment-on-every-twitch-in-the-ballot-counts-and-exit-polls hysteria like we've never seen. Wednesday is going to be pandemonium. There won't be a soul on the board distinguishable from either a happy or an angry drunk. Weeping, screaming, jeering, fawning over speeches, stale jokes about Paul's perennial overconfidence. At least one rambling, syrupy post about the awesomeness of Ms. Clinton being elected by Dezi, happy, Optimist, GG. I don't even want to think about what Weltz will be like. As soon as Mr. Trump officially becomes a "loser", she'll go off like a nuclear bomb. Thursday will be the first day that Clinton supporters' gloating over Mr. Trump's demise turns to calls for unity behind the new president, burying the hatchet, working together. By the latter part of the day, most will have finally clued into the fact that Republicans have precisely zero intention of doing so (which will inexplicably surprise a lot of posters), and they'll wind up as enraged as Mr. Trump's supporters. I'll log in on Friday. The admin bubble will have "28" next to it. I'll have PM's from at least two posters quitting the board and thanking me for the discussions over the years. The post-election hysteria won't nearly be over, but as long as there's a tiny bit of oxygen, I'll brave it. I'll be on until I go to bed tonight, but I might as well make it official now: Supporters of Ms. Clinton: congratulations on your candidate's win. Supporters of Mr. Trump: my condolences for your candidate's loss. YMAM Mods: sorry for ducking out on you, but I don't do mass hysteria. Everyone: see you on Friday. I thought we weren't supposed to make it about the posters?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,403
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 6, 2016 18:44:17 GMT -5
the EC absolutely favors the GOP. I've never really followed the polls closely before. At what point do the pollers stop polling? right up until exit polling? or do they take a break? they will poll until midnight tonight. after that, it will be EXIT POLLING.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,403
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Nov 6, 2016 18:45:42 GMT -5
for many reasons. here are a few: 1) first of all, NH is the most elastic electorate in the country. if bad shit is going to happen to Clinton, it is going to happen in NH FIRST. and, on the other side of that argument, if good shit is going to happen to her, it is going to happen there first. 2) second, it votes early. so, we out here in reefer land get to see what those straight New Englanders do before we put out our joints and go vote. 3) the demographics in NH are quite similar to those of the US. if Clinton wins by 1% in NH, she will probably lose all of the tossup states. if she wins by 4%, she will probably win all of the tossup states. 4) because IF Clinton loses all of the tossup states, AND NH, she will lose the election. it is really that simple. NH is clearly crucial in this election. so 1 and 2 - canary in the coal mine. 3 - a stratified random sample. 4 - bellwether ? you nailed it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 14, 2024 7:12:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2016 20:18:03 GMT -5
Really? You don't say! I wouldn't have known that without your assistance! Question is: do they have more ACTUAL VOTERS in them? This is part of why I detest the whole Electoral College thing. Yes, they have more people... but population is no guarantee of number of votes cast. If we want to keep the EC, it should be changed to proportionate to actual votes CAST in each state. Keep the number of electors the same, for fairness... but apportion them based on TOTAL votes cast in each state (no matter who won or lost) as a percentage of the whole count for the entire country. That way the "bias" would be to the VOTERS and not to the people that don't care enough to vote (heck, maybe doing that would cause more people TO vote) ETA: for the record, the first two sentences were sarcastic. In 2012, 13.2M ballots were counted in California. That is more than Wyoming, West Virginia, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Alabama, Idaho, Nebraska, Arkansas, Kentucky, South Dakota, Louisana and Montana combined. Those 12 states counted 12.6 million ballots, and are the top 12 states listed as Trump's on fivethirtyeight. They control 61 EVs, vs CA's 55. Your logic does not hold water. Also, dividing the electoral votes in those 12 states by the number of voters means there was 1 vote for every 206 thousand voters. Yet in California, there was 1 electoral vote for every 240 thousand voters. So, proportionally, the people in those 12 states had more influence than the voters of California. If we do away with the electoral college, the game would be played very differently, but I am not sure it would give the republicans the results they want. In 2012, the following is true: CA: Votes: 13,038,547 Electors: 55 TX: Votes: 7,993,851 Electors: 38 Total (just those two states): Votes: 13,038,547 + 7,993,851 = 21,032,398 Electors: 55 + 38 = 93 Percentages (just those two states): CA Votes: 61.99267910392339 TX Votes: 38.00732089607661 CA Electors: 59.13978494623656 TX Electors: 40.86021505376344 My logic holds true... otherwise the percentage of differences (votes vs votes... and electors vs electors) would be identical. Interestingly enough, with my "plan" California would actually have GAINED in votes for 2012 using that formula (I freely said that I didn't know how population related to voters in California)... unless, knowing the formula more Texans would have voted because they wanted to "up their state's electors" ETA: I'm not a Republican... so don't care about what they want. I want fairness.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,480
|
Post by thyme4change on Nov 6, 2016 20:52:05 GMT -5
The fact that there has only been one contest in modern history that popular vote and electoral vote results were different tells me it isn't as broken as you would want us to believe.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 14, 2024 7:12:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2016 21:25:14 GMT -5
The fact that there has only been one contest in modern history that popular vote and electoral vote results were different tells me it isn't as broken as you would want us to believe. One is all that needs to happen for the point to be valid. So... point=valid.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,252
|
Post by tallguy on Nov 6, 2016 21:52:47 GMT -5
And that one required blatant voter suppression and an illegitimate Supreme Court decision to turn out that way.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 14, 2024 7:12:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 6, 2016 23:21:17 GMT -5
And that one required blatant voter suppression and an illegitimate Supreme Court decision to turn out that way. Irrelevant. Did it happen? Yes or no? BUT... more to the point... which election was that? There hasn't been one with those characteristics that I am aware of.
|
|
dezailoooooo
Senior Associate
Joined: Aug 28, 2016 13:56:33 GMT -5
Posts: 13,630
|
Post by dezailoooooo on Nov 7, 2016 8:46:31 GMT -5
". Donald Trump is (once again) critical of the FBI"...just the other day when directer said new e mails found he was gushing all over him....now that they says they examined them and nothing bad regarding Hillery is found...he is back to bashing them...so very Presidential...
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,749
|
Post by Tennesseer on Nov 7, 2016 10:01:17 GMT -5
". Donald Trump is (once again) critical of the FBI"...just the other day when directer said new e mails found he was gushing all over him....now that they says they examined them and nothing bad regarding Hillery is found...he is back to bashing them...so very Presidential... Mean girl relationships are usually short lived.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Nov 7, 2016 14:10:02 GMT -5
I called & checked today. In Georgia you can NOT take a pic of your ballot or a selfie in the voting booth. I really wanted a pic of my ballot.
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Nov 7, 2016 19:19:06 GMT -5
I just got off the phone with my BFF in Houston. She has changed her protest vote from Johnson to Hillary. she said it was the groping women that changed her mind. She said (and I quote) "I remember working in an office with assholes like that and there's no fucking way I'm voting to put that kind of shit in the White House". Then she gave me all kinds of hell because I got all teary over it (damn emotions!)
|
|
Jaguar
Administrator
Fear does not stop death. It stops life.
Joined: Dec 20, 2011 6:07:45 GMT -5
Posts: 50,108
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IZlZ65.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Text Color: 290066
|
Post by Jaguar on Nov 7, 2016 20:12:14 GMT -5
I just got off the phone with my BFF in Houston. She has changed her protest vote from Johnson to Hillary. she said it was the groping women that changed her mind. She said (and I quote) "I remember working in an office with assholes like that and there's no fucking way I'm voting to put that kind of shit in the White House". Then she gave me all kinds of hell because I got all teary over it (damn emotions!)
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Nov 7, 2016 20:14:37 GMT -5
but we can wear pink if we want right?
|
|
Jaguar
Administrator
Fear does not stop death. It stops life.
Joined: Dec 20, 2011 6:07:45 GMT -5
Posts: 50,108
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IZlZ65.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Text Color: 290066
|
Post by Jaguar on Nov 7, 2016 20:15:35 GMT -5
but we can wear pink if we want right? Oh damn yes, WHEN WE WANT!
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Nov 7, 2016 20:22:11 GMT -5
|
|
ken a.k.a OMK
Senior Associate
They killed Kenny, the bastards.
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 14:39:20 GMT -5
Posts: 14,130
Location: Maryland
|
Post by ken a.k.a OMK on Nov 7, 2016 20:25:58 GMT -5
Wait.......didn't the church say she had to have sex with me?
|
|
steff
Senior Associate
I'll sleep when I'm dead
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 17:34:24 GMT -5
Posts: 10,772
|
Post by steff on Nov 8, 2016 1:19:11 GMT -5
heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/The FISA warrant was granted in connection with the investigation of suspected activity between the server and two banks, SVB Bank and Alfa Bank. However, it is thought in the intelligence community that the warrant covers any ‘US person’ connected to this investigation, and thus covers Donald Trump and at least three further men who have either formed part of his campaign or acted as his media surrogates. The warrant was sought, they say, because actionable intelligence on the matter provided by friendly foreign agencies could not properly be examined without a warrant by US intelligence as it involves ‘US Persons’ who come under the remit of the FBI and not the CIA. Should a counter-intelligence investigation lead to criminal prosecutions, sources say, the Justice Department is concerned that the chain of evidence have a basis in a clear warrant. In June, when the first FISA warrant was denied, the FBI was reportedly alarmed at Carter Page’s trip to Moscow and meetings with Russian officials, one week before the DNC was hacked. Counter intelligence agencies later reported to both Presidential candidates that Russia had carried out this hack; Donald Trump said publicly in the third debate that ‘our country has no idea’ if Russia did the hacking. The discovery of the Trump Tower private Russian server, however, communicating with Alfa Bank, changed matters, sources report. To further complicate the story, the FISA warrant was allegedly granted in part because of the involvement of Vladimir Putin’s own daughters. One is married to a senior official at Gazprom, where Carter Page and Paul Manafort reportedly have holdings; another to Kirill Shamalov, a banking official. The fact that the alleged warrant was a FISA warrant is itself significant. The court exists to grant warrants to examine cases concerned with Foreign Intelligence.
|
|
Jaguar
Administrator
Fear does not stop death. It stops life.
Joined: Dec 20, 2011 6:07:45 GMT -5
Posts: 50,108
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"https://cdn.nickpic.host/images/IZlZ65.jpg","color":""}
Mini-Profile Text Color: 290066
|
Post by Jaguar on Nov 8, 2016 2:30:45 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Jun 14, 2024 7:12:25 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2016 2:35:10 GMT -5
heatst.com/world/exclusive-fbi-granted-fisa-warrant-covering-trump-camps-ties-to-russia/The FISA warrant was granted in connection with the investigation of suspected activity between the server and two banks, SVB Bank and Alfa Bank. However, it is thought in the intelligence community that the warrant covers any ‘US person’ connected to this investigation, and thus covers Donald Trump and at least three further men who have either formed part of his campaign or acted as his media surrogates. The warrant was sought, they say, because actionable intelligence on the matter provided by friendly foreign agencies could not properly be examined without a warrant by US intelligence as it involves ‘US Persons’ who come under the remit of the FBI and not the CIA. Should a counter-intelligence investigation lead to criminal prosecutions, sources say, the Justice Department is concerned that the chain of evidence have a basis in a clear warrant. In June, when the first FISA warrant was denied, the FBI was reportedly alarmed at Carter Page’s trip to Moscow and meetings with Russian officials, one week before the DNC was hacked. Counter intelligence agencies later reported to both Presidential candidates that Russia had carried out this hack; Donald Trump said publicly in the third debate that ‘our country has no idea’ if Russia did the hacking. The discovery of the Trump Tower private Russian server, however, communicating with Alfa Bank, changed matters, sources report. To further complicate the story, the FISA warrant was allegedly granted in part because of the involvement of Vladimir Putin’s own daughters. One is married to a senior official at Gazprom, where Carter Page and Paul Manafort reportedly have holdings; another to Kirill Shamalov, a banking official. The fact that the alleged warrant was a FISA warrant is itself significant. The court exists to grant warrants to examine cases concerned with Foreign Intelligence. That doesn't sound good for Trump... IF something actually comes of it... and IF the Justice department actually does anything with it. Since they let Clinton slide and we know that they actually had a credible case (people are serving time for lesser offences with less evidence)... their track record in "doing something about illegal activity, when it's someone who is rich and powerful that's in their cross-hairs" is somewhat in doubt.
|
|