Election 2016

[B]

I think he said it was this one:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/09/26/ ... al-debate/

Maybe this is why Nate Silver failed to predict Trump's primary victories.

[Bi_3]

I think he said it was this one:

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/09/26/ ... al-debate/

Maybe this is why Nate Silver failed to predict Trump's primary victories.

Maybe it was those 400 pound hackers changing the polls.

[dimejinky99]

Seems his supporters rigged polls all over the place via reddit

http://www.politicususa.com/2016/09/27/ ... polls.html

[Birds in Hell]

Anonymous online polls are inaccurate? This is shocking stuff.

[bune]

Remember when this was fun and Lincoln Chaffee was running?

Considering I had to Google that name...no.

[Strat]

http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2016 ... dnt-ac.cnn



its like the daily show but...

[Jorge]

That was pretty tame

[Simple Torture]

Yeah, I didn't hear a single racial slur, wtf?

[dimejinky99]

[dimejinky99]

[Strat]

http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news ... dge-2016-9

[dimejinky99]

[dimejinky99]

http://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-online-debate-polls-trump-drudge-2016-9

Well he's not long for that job. The horse has already bolted. Did he send it prior to the debate? Did any hosts listen to the directive? Three? That's not what will stick.

[Birds in Hell]

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/09/ca ... top-trump/

One of the many interesting findings Jonathan Haidt has made in his study of political partisanship is that liberals are much worse at understanding their opponents than conservatives are. It might be that, as David Brooks has pointed out, conservatives are so surrounded by liberal ideas, they would be hard pressed not to understand them. Perhaps it’s because liberals are more likely to believe opponents to be just fundamentally wrong and/or evil. A recent study showed that remainers are six times more likely than leavers to display one of the main characteristics of political sectarianism: hostility to a family member marrying one of the other tribe.

But it might also be that liberals, being high-status both in the US and Britain, just don’t care what conservatives believe, because generally people aren’t that interested in what those lower down the social hierarchy think or do (except when they are so far down as to be outside the social norms, in which case they become the subjects of HBO dramas).

If actors and singers were serious about stopping Trump, they might want to look at what is driving his support. As Haidt says, his supporters ‘perceive that the moral order is falling apart, the country is losing its coherence and cohesiveness, diversity is rising, and our leadership seems to be suspect or not up to the needs of the hour. It’s as though a button is pushed on their forehead that says “in case of moral threat, lock down the borders, kick out those who are different, and punish those who are morally deviant.”’

Indeed Trump ‘is not a conservative, and is not appealing to classical conservative ideas. He is an authoritarian, who is profiting from the chaos in Washington, Syria, Paris, San Bernardino, and even the chaos on campuses, which are creating a more authoritarian electorate in the Republican primaries.’ He is succeeding because, as Karen Stenner suggested in a 2005 book, The Authoritarian Dynamic, authoritarianism ‘is not a stable personality trait’ but is ‘rather a psychological predisposition to become intolerant when the person perceives a certain kind of threat.’

What drives authoritarianism are ‘normative threats’, things that threaten the moral order: ‘The experience or perception of disobedience to group authorities or authorities unworthy of respect, nonconformity to group norms or norms proving questionable, lack of consensus in group values and beliefs and, in general, diversity and freedom “run amok” should activate the predisposition and increase the manifestation of these characteristic attitudes and behaviours.’

Now some people might feel that the moral order of the West is under threat, and some might not. But it’s strange that the behaviour of so many anti-Trump advocates, whether it’s actors or the Black Lives Matter campaigners, seems only to reinforce this not entirely irrational fear.

[bune]

It would appear the Spectator is blocked here...so is that really the title of the article? Holy shit.

[Birds in Hell]

Well, if you think mocking Trump and implying his supporters are morons for voting for him (refer to dime's memes above) is effective, then carry right on.

EDIT: Oh, you've updated your post now. I thought the gif was a reference to the extract I posted.

[BurtReynolds]

Did someone's mom discover RM?

[bune]

Well, if you think mocking Trump and implying his supporters are morons for voting for him (refer to dime's memes above) is effective, then carry right on.

EDIT: Oh, you've updated your post now. I thought the gif was a reference to the extract I posted.

You had it right the first time, but I don't mock his supporters: I was mocking the title of the article.

[Birds in Hell]

Well, if you think mocking Trump and implying his supporters are morons for voting for him (refer to dime's memes above) is effective, then carry right on.

EDIT: Oh, you've updated your post now. I thought the gif was a reference to the extract I posted.

You had it right the first time, but I don't mock his supporters: I was mocking the title of the article.

Sure, but if you read the article, the author himself is mocking the idea.

In any case, I wouldn't get too hung up on the title, it doesn't have that much to do with the rest of the piece.

[bune]

Well, if you think mocking Trump and implying his supporters are morons for voting for him (refer to dime's memes above) is effective, then carry right on.

EDIT: Oh, you've updated your post now. I thought the gif was a reference to the extract I posted.

You had it right the first time, but I don't mock his supporters: I was mocking the title of the article.

Sure, but if you read the article, the author himself is mocking the idea.

In any case, I wouldn't get too hung up on the title, it doesn't have that much to do with the rest of the piece.

Ah. I'm tempted to quote Poe's Law here but that would be too easy. So you posted the whole article then? I'm just not sure that I hold with the argument presented. Liberals are high-status and conservatives aren't? That seems more classist than anything, though coming from a British rag who's to say it isn't. (oh my) But back to the point: rich conservatives exist, and they are as high-status as any high-status liberal. I don't get this divide at all.