Re: Decision 2016
 

I think I follow, but the moment they mentioned John Kerry specifically in the ad, they became a partisan organization, contrary to their claims.

EDIT: Reading up on the 'Swift Vets' story now. As I was 12 at the time, of the election, and not in Virginia I did not pay attention to it.

EDIT AGAIN: a 527 group can certainly, legally, advocate for or against an individual running for office. Super PACS make ads about that all the time. In an ideal world, its a way for citizens to pool some money to express their views to their fellow citizens.

I found an article from 2004 that begins as follows:"Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a non-partisan, non-profit group representing more than 250 Swift Boat veterans who served with Senator John Kerry in Vietnam, announced today they are joining forces with a group of American prisoners of war who were held captive by the North Vietnamese during the Vietnam War."


The moment they claimed to be a non-partisan group, yet still advocating against Senator Kerry, they were absolutely in the wrong. Also, if any of them claimed to have been Kerry's crewmates aboard a ship when they were not, (or for an exaggerated timeframe) that's also blatantly wrong, and such behavior should be prevented or prosecuted. They had every right and opportunity to not claim to be non-partisan, and every opportunity to question Senator Kerry's judgment without spreading falsehoods about him. They could have stated why they believed Kerry's stance on military spending or veteran's benefits were contrary to the interests of veterans. (Off the top of my head, I don't actually know what veteran-related stances Mr. Kerry was running on in 2004, its just an example). But any of those claims should have necessitated dropping the 'non-partisan' mantra.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Ok, I was curious about that. So you draw the line at mentioning the candidate by name. Let us change the facts a bit. Let us now say that LCAW is filthy rich guys pulling for *Kerry*, and not Bush. The ad talks about the importance of the military, and at the end of the ad, the gravel-voiced guy says, "The world is a dangerous place. We, who have served overseas, know that. Our leaders should, too."

Didn't mention anyone by name. Nobody associated with LCAW honestly cares about this issue in this context; it's just a way to sneak in extra pro-Kerry advertising in a close state. Thoughts?

edit: The "Swiftboat Veterans for Truth" was a sham organization. Wasn't an issue ad thing, though, as I recall. I'm just playing with it for the purpose of our conversation. Now I've switched candidates. Good for you digging up the info. :)

Re: Decision 2016
 

As long as the ad had two or more veterans from some oversea operation, to make that final claim true, yes, I am okay with that. Whether or not I agree with what they say in the ad, as long as any statements of fact are clearly true, and any numerical statistics used cite the specific study, yes, it is speech that ought to be protected.

Of course, the next level of this is that a wealthy person will fund a sham study to make the numbers say what he wants, instead of the truth. Or the president/treasurer of these groups actively collude with some party or campaign.
How to weed out and prevent that corruption, without harming legitimate groups, I honestly don't know. But I am not in favor of any policy that hampers the legitimate from having their voices heard.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Interesting. So you would force the organization to disclose something about its leadership. Where did you get the "2" minimum from? What if the membership was surviving family members of people killed in action? How much will you regulate, with your own rules? And did you agree with Tornado's restrictions on campaign finance, which are significantly greater than Johnson's "transparency" model?

It's my own feeling that libertarianism isn't meant to provide real-world solutions to hard problems. It sounds good, though, and the perspective is valuable. I just don't trust it in a position of real authority.

Shrug
 

My problems with libertarianism mostly lie in a tune similar to what vegie said. Letting the free market solve things has some problems ranging from the fact that our models of the free market often have assumptions that don't carry over into real situations (honestly I feel this way about pretty much every economic model but it feels more egregious with libertarianism than others) to the fact that even when the free market works well it means that we'll have to treat human lives as commodities in some arenas (see healthcare, education) and sometimes we can't actually create the free market due to large barriers to entry which hurts competition from actually working. I don't think these issues are insurmountable but libertarianism always feels to me like it works better in theory than in practice.

I'm down for more transparency with financing (and I worry Tornado's solution is too much the other direction incentivewise) but I worry about how in the information age misinformation spreads at least as quickly as information (and honestly it's a lot easier to package into a soundbite which is easier to hit into the stuff that gets repeated and spreads faster than the more detailed nuanced truth; this is not endemic to any one political side). I don't know how to fix this other than a long slow personal one.

~Dysole, who honestly feels that one of the best ways to run things is to force people to metagame the system into the results we want and that can be very difficult in politics especially the more polarized the populace

Re: Decision 2016
 

The 'two' simply comes from the use of the word 'We' in this fictional organization's statement, which is what would be necessary to make that statement "We, who have served overseas," factually true.

Sorry but I feel like @Tornado just pulled most of those numbers out of the ether. I do not agree with them based on the quick skim I've done of his posts.

I would not describe myself as a strict Libertarian. But having a libertarian in office for a term or two would not bring this nation anywhere near the 'true libertarian' state that I believe you're afraid of. I just did the isidewith quiz and scored a mere 80% with Johnson (still my highest match). (In contrast to apparently 42% Trump 28% Stein, and 20% Clinton). Of course, I've heard many a die-hard Libertarian say that Johnson isn't a 'true' Libertarian (which seems to just be invoking the No True Scotsman fallacy to me).
Bottom line for me is that the amount of changes the Johnson administration would actually bring would be quite limited with Congress remaining approximately the same as it looks today, but I would probably agree with whatever actions he is able to take.
Thankfully, change in the USA is slow, and prevents public opinion's day-to-day changes from dictating public policy.
I'd agree with most of the more likely reforms that he would be able to implement in a single term, but the main point to me is that Mr. Johnson would act Constitutionally, revert unconstitutional actions from prior administrations, and would not abuse power to his whim. In contrast, I fear a Trump presidency and the rash decisions he could make by executive action and military commanding, and Hillary has also shown very poor judgment in high risk situations.

Re: Decision 2016
 

what numbers?
And I never pull from the ether, always my arse. :)

DS, I do not disagree I may live in a fantasy world.
Dive in.
The water is fine. :)

Re: Decision 2016
 

I reject the notion that we should decline to seek hard answers because simple answers, though they may be fantasies, are available. See the cartoon I posted above.

An additional problem with libertarianism is the problem of information flow, as dysole described. A free market only produces efficiently when the consumer knows what he or she is choosing. Setting aside the way in which prosaic things can have hidden dangers, it is (to use this word again) fantasy to think that private industry could produce things like antibiotics and electricity both (1) safely and (2) profitably without the government's guidance of the marketplace.

As for you, Nukatha, you propose that there should be a review of a small business to see if it really is what it says it is. That doesn't strike me as very "Libertarian."

Re: Decision 2016
 

I hate to admit it but maybe the problem is cultural.

Having recently gone through our longest prime minster race (I believe it was 164 days or about 5.4 months) it was very cordial. The ads from the incumbent Harper against Trudeau were "cute" and a little funny saying he was not ready but had great hair. The NDP (our leftist party) were equally even handed. However, Justin gets the "Most Canadian" award for refusing to bad mouth any of his opponents in Ad's and instead appearing in them personally to state his platform and what he would do for Canada.

Looking overseas Countries like Sweden highly value Honesty and Integrity to the point that "underhanded" businesses cannot survive and will quickly be black balled. In that kind of environment "Hate or Dishonest" ads would actually hurt the candidate placing them more than the candidate they would be attacking. The American system actually seems to thrive off conflict and embrace every dirty trick in the book. Trump seems to revealing in that Environment.

It is the difference between RISK or Monopoly and Catan or Carcassonne. In one it is about destroying your opponent, while in the other it is about getting the most points for yourself.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Great perspective wriggz. Thanks for sharing that.

It would be cool if people in the US were simply better.

value Honesty and Integrity. Heck of a concept.

Re: Decision 2016
 

That's a whole different can of worms. For better or for worse, we are the way we are. There is no starting gun, where countries all start the same way and have the same opportunity to follow a track one way or another. They all start at different times and places, and have to hack through their own jungles. The American jungle has some hazards, and some history, that the Canadian jungle does not have. Lucky for the Canadians.

We should strive to be better. I don't think pretending that there are simple solutions to complex problems is the way to get there.

We go to experts when we want services. I expect my doctor to treat my broken leg; I expect my grocer to sell me food. When I have a complicated medical problem, I don't treat myself. I don't go to the grocer. I go to the doctor. I listen carefully and think critically and I may consider getting a different doctor instead, but I don't go to the grocer, and I don't treat myself.

My 2 cents.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I would not blame the people. The way corporations are set up it almost begs it to be that way. 24-News also feeds into the competitive nature of politics.


The media has great power and there are certain stories that get played out that shape culture. The Cultural history of Canada is based on Survival and Peace. From just trying not to die in the cold, to refusing to sanction a standing army after the war of 1812, to abandoning the Avero Aero (top class fighter jet before it's time), The stories we tell here are different. Hell just compare the National anthems and you will see the cultural difference.


The US has never really been scared by war (in the same way Europe was), was built on exploration (and some exploitation), and the cultural story is about being the biggest and best. There is also the narrative of the Lone hero overcoming huge odds, rather than a story of co-operation. Those stories get told over and over in movies, TV and they shape how people look at things.


No other single country could have done what the US has done. NASA went to the moon damn it. The Civil rights movement is something to be immensely proud of and it's effect on the rest of the world. The Media coming out of Hollywood has been amazing. It is a wonderful country with wonderful people, and Likely the first place that a rebellion from Alien overlords would start.


That all said, knowing where culture comes from can help avoid the pitfalls of Loud mouths abusing a collective history for his own gains.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I appreciate the sentiment, especially from someone outside the US.
I do believe people are good for the most part.

I also believe that Americans choose to act like they do and it is not a culture that we had to become. We made this bed we are lying in.

DS, what I am getting from you is that us commoners have no business discussing politics and should stick to discussing board games.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Not at all. I've said repeatedly and I'll say it again: we should not abandon critical thinking. We should challenge what we're told and we should think carefully about our votes and the people seeking them. We should be mindful, however, that complex problems tend to have complex solutions, where solutions are possible at all.

We should be *very* suspicious of people who tell us there are simple solutions to complex problems, and we should be even *more* suspicious of people who tell us that there are simple solutions to virtually all of our problems.

I am referring to Johnson, guilty of the first, and Trump, guilty of the second. Side note: Trump's ability to blend his simple solutions with blame on the Other, be it other races, religions, or nationalities, is how you get to fascism and/or dictatorships.

Anyway. When I talk about the danger of simple solutions, I'm not saying that only experts can answer things. Look again at what I wrote about going to the doctor:

Value expertise. Just as you do in all the other areas of your life. Trump has repeatedly said things like he knows better than advisors he might get. That's very, very dangerous. You don't surround yourself with experts (not that he has, as far as I can tell), and reject their advice without careful consideration. Consider how Melania Trump ended up plagiarizing Michelle Obama's speech: the Trumps arranged for experienced, professional speechwriters to draft something for Melania. They did. The Trumps didn't like it and let some friend of theirs rewrite it. And the friend plagiarized Obama. It was stupid, and it wouldn't have happened, except that Trump undervalued the input of his own experts.

Challenge your experts! If your doctor tells you something that sounds dumb, tell your doctor it sounds dumb! But start by listening, and then listen again when you get your answer. If you still think it's wrong, it very well may be.

Anyway. I am 100% sure I am accidentally blending my points here, and the significance I see in each. Let me try to break it down a bit:

1. Expert advice has value. That's why you go to a doctor for medical problems and a lawyer for legal ones. My point here is directed at two things, both related to the ridiculousness of Trump: he has no relevant expertise or experience in governance, and he doesn't have the temperament to listen to any experts who he can get to be near him. That is one among many of his disqualifying features.

2. Complex problems cannot, in the real world, normally be reduced to simple solutions. This point was addressed more at the Libertarian part of our discussion, though it certainly also applies to Trump, who appears to think that every problem has a simple solution. And he knows what it is and can get it done. And he's the only one who can.

The discussion of campaign finance reform was just, from my perspective, an exploration of the second point. I don't know all the answers. Mostly I have questions, but (like I said about going to the doctor), you're supposed to have questions and think critically. Don't stop just because the problem is complex, keep poking at it.

I apologize for crossing the points so quickly, Tornado. I was certainly *not* saying we shouldn't ask questions. Both of each other, and of others. :up:

Re: Decision 2016
 

I follow you know.
Thanks for the explanation.

I agree that you should value expert's opinions but I also believe experts can get too close to their subject and sometimes it takes an outsider to see something that in hindsight becomes obvious.

I know this is true in the game system I have been working on forever. I always need fresh eyes because I need that perspective. When people do not understand something I have to keep in mind that they have not been working on it for years and I need to make sure it is clear to someone reading/playing the first time.
Plus they may have an out of the box idea I would have never considered.

Good chat.

Re: Decision 2016
 

That worry is worrying. Yes you may get too close, and an outsider might catch something you didn't, but your eyes are Infinitely more useful than anyone else's.


This starts to ring of people who start to question Established science, thinking there is an agenda at play. If a doctor tells you, you have cancer they may be wrong, and maybe you should get a second opinion. That second opinion should come from another (hopefully better/more experienced) Doctor not a dentist.


For your Game system a fresh eye may be good, but I bet you would much rather have Craig Van Ness look at your game.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Touche.

Fresh expert eyes are nice.

For final analysis I prefer novices. If they can figure it out on their own then I accomplished my goal. People with a strong gaming background pick it up quickly. I need to ensure that those with less experience can also enjoy the product.

I suppose board games and politics is not a great comparison. :)

Re: Decision 2016
 

In general, perhaps not, but specifically for sure.

Monopoly: On runaway winner defined by an early lead later on, at the expense of all others.
Power Grid: Government regulations keep the 'Big' power companies from getting cheap resources and increase the cost of building infrastructure to them.
Puerto Rico: Your decisions often benefit everyone, but do benefit you more.
Flash Fire/Forbidden Island/Desert: EVERYTHING IS GOING TO FUAIJIOJWALKSD! ABANDON SHIP!!
Pandemic: This Really sucks, but if we really coordinate our efforts we might just save most people.
12th dimensional Hyper Candy Land: Well, we all know how the Trump Campaign is going, right?

Re: Decision 2016
 

I think, if Martin Wallace had it to do over again, he would have liked more expert input on A Few Acres of Snow. Experts can bring stress tests that novices would never know to apply.

I'm not trying to make a larger point, but I read this post & immediately thought of that game.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I hear you. If they would have ran AotP past some Heroscaper's I believe it would be a much better product(less uncertainty in how spells/powers work).

I am just saying after all the critical issues are resolved you still need to ensure a novice can play your game.

We have had some solid success at Gen Con with a variety of players and I appreciate the diversity and input we get.

When I saw the game running itself while drinks were flowing, I knew we had something.

Sorry to derail here.

Anyone concerned with North Korea and their development of nukes?

Re: Decision 2016
 

That's very very true. Frankly I find it difficult to blame her for this sort of bunker mentality, when there have been so many purported scandals raised referencing the Clintons over the years, and most of them have turned out to be completely hollow.

There's a conservative media industry that treats Clinton scandals like catnip. At some point, the fact that people keep calling things involving Clinton scandals can't, by itself, be used to justify the idea that they are corrupt. That argument invites the continued ginning up of fake scandals, right?

She's certainly not perfect, and some decisions seem particularly hamhanded. But she's basically a normal politician, and none of her many, many scandals are particularly concerning to me. I have no real concern that she'll be bought and paid for as president.

All? That's a stretch. I agree she has a well-worn distrust of the media, but she's revealed a lot of her private life. She's also far from the most avaricious candidate we've seen in recent cycles.

And then there's the comparison... by any reasonable standard, Hillary Clinton has been drastically more transparent, and drastically less greedy, than Donald Trump.

• Hillary has released, literally, over three consecutive decades of tax records. Trump, none.
• Despite all the current chatter that could suggest otherwise, Hillary has released more detailed medical records than Trump.
• The Clinton Foundation has extensive public records of who it has given money to, and literally nothing it has contributed to has been considered anything but a solid charitable cause. The Trump foundation releases roughly the minimum public records, and has been implicated in a very plausible bribery scandal (not to mention the silly low-grade violations like purchasing a painting of Trump with charitable donations).
• Clinton has explicitly laid out plans for how the charitable foundation will be separated from her when she is in office. Trump has refused to disclose his business ties and has stated that he will let his kids run his businesses if he is President.
• Hillary accepted some expensive speaking fees, and pays a very high tax rate. Trump has a long established track record of stiffing contractors and of using bankruptcy to avoid paying creditors, and in all likelihood uses depreciation to pay little or no income tax.

Uh, Obama hasn't? Seriously, he has not avoided them, in the eyes or many. If you like you can google "Obama scandals" and enjoy spending literally hours treading through an alternative reality where Obama has committed high crimes and somehow avoided justice on multiple occasions.

What someone who dislikes you accuses you of is not meaningful. What a salacious news media deems worthy of reporting is not meaningful. It's unwise to judge Hillary by the volume of accusations that people lob at her. What matters is how meaningful the evidence is.

(Tangential - of all the leaked e-mails from Colin Powell, the most interesting thing to me was his exchange with Condoleeza Rice about Benghazi. They agreed that the person most responsible was actually the ambassador who died - it was his mistake to put himself and his staff in such an insecure location. They also agreed there was plenty of blame to go around, up to and including Hillary, but that there was clearly nothing criminal.)

There's a cultural element but it's easy to overstate. The key factors in why USA politics have become both zero-sum, and very nasty, are:

• The election method itself. Elections in parliamentary democracies, especially those that use proportional representation, reward those who seek to drum up enthusiasm for their causes, and create much less incentive to spend time, money, and effort bringing down one particular foe. The first-past-the-post voting system in the USA, combined with the distinct presidential election, means that a vote taken away from your main rival is as valuable as a vote added to your own total. So negativity is rewarded.
• The simultaneous nationalization of and balkanization of the media. 40 years ago, local news and local papers were much more powerful, making local interests really important in congressional elections. Because of that, a Democrat in one part of the country could be more similar to their Republican opponent than a fellow Democrat from another part of the country. This made cross-party coalitions much more common than they are now. Now, local news is weakened, but media has been divided along ideological lines. This has basically the opposite effect, pushing the parties further apart.
• Gerrymandering has drastically increased polarization in the house, basically exacerbating the above issues. Gerrymandering has always been a problem but it's gotten much more precise in the last 20 years.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Great insight dok.

I always enjoy your use of vocabulary.

My favorites are 'ginning up' (never heard that before), 'hamhanded' (this needs to be used more' and 'balkanization'.

Lots of other good ones in there. :)

Re: Decision 2016
 

You are comparing my comments on HRC to Trump. If you look at my posts, I have been far more brutal in my comments on Trump, than on HRC.

There are 2 primary ways to respond to criticism. One is to have a bunker mentality. Another is to have nothing to hide and open the doors.

I have no idea if HRC has done anything illegal. I actually hope for more from a presidential candidate than something along the lines of, "it hasn't been possible to prove that they broke the law." I cringe at the thought of Bill Clinton accepting large speaking fees and donations from Saudi Arabia, Russia, China, Egypt, UAE, Panama, Turkey, Taiwan,...., while HRC was the Secretary of State. I'm sure that Michelle Obama could have received even higher fees if the Obama's didn't care about the perception of such an action. Even if there is nothing that is explicitly shown to be illegal, doesn't this bother you even a little? In a world where perception is reality, who would do that if they weren't collecting over $150 million?

As for the media, excluding Fox News, it is hard to suggest that the "salacious news media" (most of the salacious reporting was about Bill, not Hillary;)) is biased against her. Do you really think that there is a conservative bias in the news media?

I looked up "Obama Scandals" and most don't seem to be directly connected to Obama. They seem more like the standard partisan attacks that lots of presidents have had. YMMV.

Before someone thinks that I am a fan of Trump, consider my recent post.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Only in the one section where I directly compare them. The rest is more of a comparison of HRC to public figures in general.

Reality is not binary. The e-mail scandal (which certainly contains wrongdoing, but nothing major or malicious) is a good example of this. Hillary has disclosed an enormous amount of personal information, some of it voluntarily, some of it after having it dragged out of her. She resisted revealing some stuff she insisted is entirely personal in nature. Is that opening the doors, is that reasonable? Is that a bunker mentality? It's not really one or the other. It's a person living under a microscope and trying to navigate it in her way, neither perfect nor deplorable.

You realize it's impossible to prove a negative, right? The above statement is literally the best you could hope of any presidential candidate, because literally the only alternative is that they have been proven to break the law. (You know, like Donald Trump has.)

The possible conflict of interest is there, sure. But it's a stretch when the money of the Clinton foundation is so well accounted for, and goes to projects that are very obviously philanthropic.

Buying influence happens all the time in politics - usually by contributing to a politician's campaign, other times by purchasing the services of high-priced lobbyists with access. By contrast, contributing money to a charity associated with someone seems like both an extremely ineffective and almost comically benign way to attempt to purchase influence.

There is a bias towards creating the appearance of parity. There is a bias towards not appearing to take sides. When one candidate is easily the least qualified and most scandal-ridden candidate of my lifetime, attempting to portray the problems each candidate has in the same light amounts to a massive bias. And yes, that's what we're seeing. "He said, she said" reporting only works when there's roughly an equal amount of rightness and wrongness on both sides. And there isn't; not even close.

Donald Trump's "charitable foundation" gave a $25k contribution to the PAC of the Florida attorney general while she was considering whether to press charges against Trump over Trump university. The foundation later claimed this was a clerical error and they had intended to give the money to a charity in Utah with a similar name (one they have never given money to before or since). Riiiiiight.

Go ahead, try to find one story in HRC's history that suggests anything even close to the same level of quid pro quo as that story. And yet, that story has gotten extremely little coverage, because it's lost in the whirlwind of insanity that is the Trump campaign. Meanwhile, the e-mail scandal just keeps coming around and around, largely because there's just not a ton of other questionable stuff to talk about.

A combination of journalistic laziness and journalistic cowardice has led to a false balance that is actually, yes, quite biased.

Of course they're the standard partisan attacks. That's really the same as Hillary's though.

It's hard to remember now, but in 2011 and 2012 every damn story was seen on the right as the scandal that's finally going to bring down the Obama administration. Christ, remember how often we heard the word "Solyndra"? And we now think of Benghazi as a Hillary scandal, but for the two months from when it happened until the 2012 election, it was a 100% Obama scandal.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I'll be honest and say that I think the media in general is overstating the public dislike of Trump and making it seem like there is less parity than there is. Trump reminds me a lot of Brexit. Trump was always viewed as an impossibility supported by racists, same for Brexit. I think day of, Brexit was seen as like a 20% shot to happen by most betting markets. But it happened, and by a sizable margin. It was the same with Trump's primary run, where Trump was not really considered a likely winner from the general media until it was too late. Even Fox News was kind of anti-Trump during the primaries; he's not really a traditional conservative. I guess my point in general is that the media is not very in touch with the kind of people who vote Trump. These aren't the people who voted Romney or McCain or even Bush.

One thing that is super important about the first-past-the-post voting system that dok was talking about is that it does effectively measure levels of enthusiasm. People can support a candidate, but not every single one of them goes out to vote on election day. But if you are more enthused about a candidate, you are far more likely to get out and vote. Trump supporters are much more fervent than Clinton supporters. Most of the people who openly support Trump will vote for him, some of the people who express dissatisfaction with both candidates but prefer Clinton will not.

I think, because of that, Trump's chances of winning are much higher than most sites say. I am not sure around what percentage, but I'd estimate at least 66%.

You were more talking about parity in the quality of candidates, but I think the media isn't being that seriously by Trump supporters anyways. A lot of Trump's campaign plays around American mistrust of the media. I guess there is an argument that the media is taking him too seriously which causes people to support him, but I'd argue the inverse of the media not taking him seriously enough is what got him where he is.

Support Beams
 

66% feels really high vegie. Plenty of people missed the Trump train in the primaries and 538 even regrets not building a model to categorize Trump's support earlier (although their model for who won each individual primary was ridiculously correct missing only 2 of the Democrat primaries and zero of the Republican primaries). As it sits right now their model for the general has Trump nowhere near that number. Trump support might be understated but I am going to trust the rigorous model put forth by 538 until new evidence comes to light.

~Dysole, who is at least a little terrified for her future if vegie is correct

Re: Decision 2016
 

Please do not quote betting market forecasts as accurate probability predictions for what would actually happen, and then note that since those markets were wrong make the conclusion that other's efforts at forecasting will also be wrong. That line of thinking has so many flaws it's tough to even swallow.

The key point we should remember about any betting market is that the bookies are trying to make money. In the case of the Brexit betting markets, people were putting money on remain more than exit, and so the bookies have to follow the money and tilt the odds so that they get more exit bets to help cover themselves. In this manner, betting markets, while often being based in good probabilistic models, will often emerge with results that don't line up to reality due to what people themselves are choosing to bet.

Good job manufacturing numbers that are based on your gut to arrive at a result you prefer. Ignore the educated experts that analyze 100's of polls and past data, create complicated models trying to account for every factor, and just say they're all overlooking something obvious and pull out a number you personally feel is more accurate.

For the record, that's really not how numbers work.

As Dysole notes, your best bet is probably fivethirtyeight's forceasts if you want a rigorous model made by statistical modeling experts. My guess though is you don't put much stock in expertise or media and will prefer your gut number over the one that is backed up by data, knowledge, and experience.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Setting up a home email server as opposed to using the government servers is in my humble opinion, a bunker mentality where you control the information. I could be fired if I did this. How about you? If in your job, you bypassed corporate security and used personal emails, without all of the requisite security, what would the reaction of the company that you work for?

Yes, I admit that it is impossible to prove a negative. Do you admit that the appearance of taking so much money (whether to their foundation or to speaking fees for Bill) is unwise for a government official? Even if the Clintons weren't influenced by the $150 million +, doesn't this create the appearance of a conflict?

And again, I'm not defending Trump.

This "comically benign" method seems to have been successful. It can be argued, without the need for a right wing conspiracy, that paying Bill millions of dollars directly affects HRC more than contributing to their campaign or their charity.

If someone paid your wife millions of dollars to give speeches, would you be influenced in any way? I would. Maybe Hillary just has a higher moral compass than I. lol

If you don't think that there is a liberal bias to the media (excluding Fox), we will just have to agree to disagree.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I was referring most specifically to 538 when I said that I thought places were underestimating his chances. They have him at just under a 40% chance to win. I don't doubt that is an accurate representation of the data they aggregate, but I don't think the data is necessarily being collected correctly by pollsters, given both Brexit and Trump's primary win. It's a possibility that I'm just trying to see a narrative from the numbers, and both were really just somewhat longshots that happened. I won't deny that. I just think Trump's chances of winning are higher than 40%.

Re: Decision 2016
 

The lesson of both Trump's primary win and Brexit is that you should believe the polls even when they tell you things that seem unlikely. Both of those results seemed very reasonable if you just read the polls. Trump was the leader in the primary polls essentially throughout the campaign (all the way back to the summer of 2015). Where 538, et al, failed in the primaries was that (as Nate Silver has explicitly admitted) they "acted like pundits" and trusted their guts instead of just looking at what the voters were saying.

Ironically, you seem to be taking those wins as a sign that we can ignore the polls telling us that Trump is likely (although certainly not guaranteed) to lose in the fall.

This is actually demonstrably false - or at least, as false as we can tell via exit polls and other polling data. Trump did succeed in bringing lots of new people into the primary electorate, however, the overwhelming majority of Trump supporters are people who already supported Republicans in fall campaigns in the past.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I was referring specifically to the increase of nationalism and how those voters change things, but maybe I am putting to much weight into the alt-right after the increased attention it's got from the media. I'm not really wanting to argue this all that much, it's just a feeling that I have that Clinton voters are not enthusiastic as Obama voters were. Maybe it's just a college campus thing. There was just an article about how college age voters like Obama far more than Clinton

Re: Decision 2016
 

You bring up data points, most of which the pollsters had pretty much correct (for almost all primary elections and the brexit vote, pollsters were pretty much within their 3-4 percentage points magin of error). You then conclude that the pollsters are probably wrong for the current election polling based on this errnorous statement?

Even if we accept the odds were 20% "longshots" for both events, that's a 1 in 25 chance that both would occur. You certainly don't have enough data points to suggest that the polling is significantly skewed, enough to basically flip Clinton's 3ish percentage point lead in the polls to favor Trump by about 4ish percentage points (which is what your 66% probability of him winning would roughly require).

Basically you're claiming that all the professional pollsters are missing these factors, and that the polls are off by about 7 percentage points. I would suggest to you that it is more likely you are just hunting for a narrative and pulling numbers that feel better to you, not that your estimates are more indicative of the real situation as compared to the experts.

Finally, as to your last point, even if you are correct that less people are excited by Clinton, that doesn't necessarily translate into her being more likely to lose. There are many other factors. I fully admit I am less excited to go vote Clinton than I was to vote Obama, but it isn't making me any less probable to actually go cast that vote. While I am a single person and this is just anecdotal, I just want to point out that you probably shouldn't confuse a lack of perceived enthusiasm as a reason why Clinton would lose and Trump would win.

Re: Decision 2016
 

If I sent a ton of work e-mails using my gmail account? Eh, probably nothing for a while. Maybe eventually some sysadmin would notice and complain. Maybe my supervisor would notice and complain. If I kept doing it after being warned not to do so, then I might get fired.

Bill Clinton was not a government official when he did those things. I don't think there's anything unwise about a private citizen collecting lots of money for a charity that does good works.

It can, sure. Money going to a charity is far less worrying to me than the run-of-the-mill legal campaign contributions, though.

Wait, what? How does it "seem" that way? You're assuming a quid pro quo. Show me something!

Where's the evidence here? Maybe you can't show me an attorney general declining to prosecute after getting a $25k campaign contribution, but can you show me anything that smells even comparably fishy? Something more than a meet and greet with donors? I'd like at least see some smoke before I yell fire.

You'll actually have considerably more success noting that Hillary worked as a senator for causes that were supported by her campaign donors. That's actually quite easy to demonstrate. And again, that's run-of-the-mill, utterly banal, legal corruption that's built into our system. This is what makes the Clinton foundation stuff so laughable to me. Why would anyone try such a strange way to influence a politician when there are such easy, direct, legal ones?

(To be fair, there's always a chicken-and-egg problem with campaign contributions. Are politicians voting a certain way because the interest groups give them money, or are the interest groups giving money to politicians because those politicians vote the way they like? Proving causality is very hard. But either way, it's very easy to make the connection - far easier than with the Clinton Foundation stuff.)

To be blunt, this is a very broad, easy, lazy response. You're falling back on something you take as granted ("liberal media") without addressing what I wrote. I explained a very specific mechanic. Do you dispute that that mechanic is in play?

You yourself have admitted that Trump is a ridiculous, unqualified figure. So, go watch your NBC/ABC/CBS nightly news for a few nights. Watch how many segments are spent on negative stories on each candidate. Watch how much focus is given to each candidate's "gaffes" and "scandals".

What you will find is "balance". An obsession with covering the horse race. Equal weight given to both sides. Equal time spent on each side's critiques and failings. No real effort to play referee and say that one side is more right or wrong than the other. In an environment where one candidate actually is wrong more often, and actually is less qualified, by almost every reasonable measure, that's not balance. That's cowardice. That's hiding behind the veneer of balance by saying, "we are letting the viewer decide."

I don't dispute that the majority of mainstream media professionals are left leaning. That's well known. The question is whether that means that, in practice, they are biased towards the left in how they report the news. And the reality is that, particularly when it comes to election coverage, they are heavily biased towards making each candidate sound equally reasonable.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I am not sure why reactions are so visceral, I was just sharing my thoughts and perspectives on what I thought is happening. I acknowledged the "narrative seeking" in the very post that you quoted...

I was just trying to discuss. Of course a 1/25 is possible, but it as at least worth discussing other reasons why unlikely outcomes occur

Re: Decision 2016
 

I'm mostly being as visceral because the idea that the odds of Trump winning are anywhere close to 2/3 is not grounded in facts currently. It may be what you think, but I'd just like to be clear that is purely a gut opinion and is not supported by the current information that is to be had.

As for the 1/25 let's not pretend that figure it at all accurate. As Dok pointed out, the polls weren't even that off, and experts have admitted their mistakes. I've explained why using betting markets is full of flaws as their job is not to accurately forecast results but to make money. The very assumption than anything unlikely has occurred thus far is something that would need to be discussed. Instead the polling has for the most part been remarkably accurate, and there is currently every reason to believe that if an election were to happen today, that Clintion would win by being anywhere between about 0-6 percentage points ahead of Trump representing her approximately 3 point lead and error of uncertainty inherent in polling.

You are more than welcome to think otherwise, but don't be surprised if I and perhaps others will come to defend what the current experts and facts support, rather than what some gut opinions are that the systems in place are missing some large factor that actually would indicate Trump is a significant favorite to win this race. The truth is he is not. He is currently the underdog and is less likely to win than Clinton.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I used 1/25 because you did, not for some sinister purpose to try and make it sound unreasonable.

Her lead is 2.3 points, which is closer to 2 than 3 according to my calculations. I am not a poll expert as you are though.

I am okay with defense of the experts, just kind of confused why you are attacking me personally for trying to think about why Trump has succeeded

Re: Decision 2016
 

As I said, the funny thing about Trump's (and Brexit's) victories is that they don't require any difficult explanation for why the data was wrong. They weren't 1 in 25 shots; they were pretty much even odds based on the polling. What requires explanation is why so many people ignored the polls.

This is actually an interesting question to ask - how a blatantly underqualified narcissistic bully took over the Republican party by appealing to xenophobia and nativism. The seeds were planted long ago, and they bore very unlikely fruit this year.

But that wasn't what people attacked. People attacked your assertion that the things that have given him success in the primary were likely to lead to success in the general. Those are different environments, and just as it was a mistake to ignore the polling in the first case, it's probably a mistake to ignore the polling in the second. People may have also been triggered by your inability to use punctuation to end a post

Re: Decision 2016
 

That's a fair way to look at it. Maybe I am over-remembering the media narratives of both as highly unlikely events and under-remembering the actual data. I know Brexit got to a point where it was considered more likely than not a few weeks before, but for some reason the odds went down until the day of the vote.

As you said, appeals to nationalism define Trump's campaign and that's why the Brexit comparison is so tempting. Why is nationalism rising now, as globalization continues and people become more interconnected? It would make a lot more sense if nationalism were decreasing (and I think it had been). A decent theory is this is just the dying breath of nativism, but there could be other answers.

I think that the factors that drove both Trump's success and Brexit are some sort of underlying change in opinion that led to increased nationalism, and that carries into the general. But saying that Trump just took advantage of a crowded Republican field and made himself the most interesting candidate is a legitimate position too. I think it will be a while until we fully understand what Trump did to succeed.

I like to leave my readers with some suspense ;)

Data Points
 

So one of the key things that helped Trump's success in the primary is that the Republican primary is very weighted toward the front runner and someone who can win pluralities. Trump also got an insane amount of free coverage. Neither of those factors seem likely to translate to success in the general. I haven't looked too deeply into Brexit but my admittedly unscientific sample of memory was that there was a decent chunk of people who did it as a protest vote but didn't actually want it to go through. Again, can't remember if that's actually data backed or if it's something I extrapolated from a few voters.

Is nationalism on the rise? I dunno. It might be louder than in the past. It's possible Trump is giving a voice to people who held these positions and now feel they can express them. It's possible people are reacting to sudden change by clinging closer to what is familiar to them. Perhaps general uncertainty is doing the same things. Perhaps in the era of soundbites an emotional appeal (which is typically what nationalism is) goes further. (There is something I saw stating that the most viral things are the things that make people angry) I think we'd need to establish a baseline for what counts as nationalism before we can make any kind of meaningful conclusion. It's not like the people voting Trump or Brexit are one monolithic collection of similar views.

~Dysole, who would hope Trump is an anomaly but she's less certain than she'd like

Re: Decision 2016
 

Some interesting reading here, consistent with what I've seen. The Times has been as guilty of this as any other major media source, so don't whine about it being the New York Times. http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/15...qoYkMNsSQ&_rdr

Re: Decision 2016
 

Yes, the "opinions differ on the shape of the earth" style of reporting. It is journalistic malpractice.

Re: Decision 2016
 

I find it quite distressing that in a year where there were numerous mass shootings sparking Gun control debates, Police shooting sparking racial debates, increasing numbers at the poverty line sparking economic debates, ongoing middle east crisis including the Syrian Refugee crisis sparking and the ongoing issues in Ukraine the biggest issue is the health of the runners.

WHAT THE HELL!?! Seriously? Medical records... this is what the media is talking about? Like, seriously? Maybe America should give up on this Independence thing and rejoin the British Empire? There are worse ideas.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Poverty rates are dropping.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Sorry you are right. i was thinking of something else specifically the wage gap and tge erosion of the middle class. Not as bad as poverty but certainly more important than medical records.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Yes, the relative stagnation of the median income (over the last ~35 years) despite drastic increases in productivity, is a serious issue. It's also true that for that same period, the poverty rate has been higher than it was in the ~15 years from the establishment of Medicaid/Welfare until the 1980s. Both of these are real issues that deserve examination. However, the short term trend (i.e. over the last several years) is that median income is up and poverty is down.

Re: Decision 2016
 

The medical and tax records angle is a matter of transparency. A 'what are you hiding' theme.

What cracks me up is Trump's camp saying that he should not have to reveal due to privacy concerns.

Say what?

If you are concerned with privacy perhaps leader of the free world is not the job for you.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Medical records are not a matter of Transparency, they are a matter of privacy. Trump's camp is right to refuse, unless there is something that is so bad it was a medical professionals duty to disclose in the same way Doctors can suspend drivers licenses. Otherwise it is not relevant to the Discourse, any more that my medical history is relevant to my current or perspective employer.

I do not want to encourage a society where your medical (and by extension genetic) history can be used to determine my merit. The decision to elect to office should not be impacted by the possible revelation that someone takes Viagra or was treated for an STD in the 1990's, or were born a different gender than you present.

I even acknowledge that Tax forms can remain private since at the time he was a private citizen. If he was doing something unlawful it is the IRS's responsibility to bring that to light. We should trust he obeyed the law, otherwise we are assuming his guilt and the social contract breaks down. In that case we are making judgments on assumptions not facts.

That all said... this "Transparency" discussion is really getting in the way of the real problems facing the country. I want reporting on the actual policies of the Candidates (such as stance on Gun Control, Equal rights and opportunities (Visible Minority, LGBTQ), Income Inequality, Immigration, Middle East and Eastern Europe crisis, Education, Policing, NASA Funding, Europe Economic Crisis, Brixit Fallout, NSA privacy Violations, Climate Change, Abortion... the list goes on). Trump has been worryingly vague on many of these issues and how he plans to move forward. Both are being drowned out by calls for Medical Records.


It is a sad state of affairs and the Media should be embarrassed.

Re: Decision 2016
 

Trump would be the oldest President ever.
I think US citizens have the right to know if he can survive.

If you want to keep your health private, that is easy, do not run for President.

Same with taxes. He makes lots of claims about his wealth. I see no reason why he should not back those claims with proof.

Again if you want privacy apply for any position other than President.

If he reveals then we can move on to more important subjects. This should not even be an issue. Release the info and be done with it.