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.