Red Mosquito

Posted: **Sun November 13, 2016 3:28 am**

Strat wrote:http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18053715/ns/politics/t/maryland-sidesteps-electoral-college/#.WCfa6uErKRs

Maryland officially became the first state on Tuesday to approve a plan to give its electoral votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the candidate chosen by state voters.

hmmm

so that would take the support of a state's general assembly, and it's governor; for enough states that can get to 270 ...?

how about instead we do a kickstarter / crowfunding campaign to support the physical relocation of 1,000,000 left-wing cold-weather northeasterners to the state of Florida to live out the rest of their days in sunny Palm Beach and every 4 years ensure the electoral safety of 'the most powerful nation on earth' ... ? I got $5 on that

Posted: **Sun November 13, 2016 3:36 am**

Strat wrote:http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18053715/ns/politics/t/maryland-sidesteps-electoral-college/#.WCfa6uErKRs

Maryland officially became the first state on Tuesday to approve a plan to give its electoral votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the candidate chosen by state voters.

updated 4/11/2007 11:17:13 AM ET

Posted: **Sun November 13, 2016 3:37 am**

Green Habit wrote:
Strat wrote:http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18053715/ns/politics/t/maryland-sidesteps-electoral-college/#.WCfa6uErKRs

Maryland officially became the first state on Tuesday to approve a plan to give its electoral votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the candidate chosen by state voters.

updated 4/11/2007 11:17:13 AM ET

bahahaha!! Shit. Usually I catch that. Sorry. Lets delete. I should hace known considering who posted it on facebook. Thanks.

Posted: **Sun November 13, 2016 3:49 am**

We need a constitutional amendment to delete everything older than five years from the internet.

Posted: **Sun November 13, 2016 3:50 am**

BurtReynolds wrote:We need a constitutional amendment to delete everything older than five years from the internet.

HRC post

Posted: **Sun November 13, 2016 4:34 am**

FUCK ICE

Posted: **Sun November 13, 2016 4:40 am**

FUCK ICE

Posted: **Sun November 13, 2016 4:45 am**

tragabigzanda wrote:538's revisionism has already begun, with their top-page article: "Why FiveThirtyEight Gave Trump A Better Chance Than Almost Anyone Else." Christ.

wtf. Ugh.

Im never watching polls again. Thats what ive learned so far.

Posted: **Sun November 13, 2016 5:11 am**

To be fair, Nate Silver did spend the last few weeks arguing with people that Trump had a good chance to win.

Posted: **Sun November 13, 2016 12:15 pm**

Green Habit wrote:
Strat wrote:http://www.nbcnews.com/id/18053715/ns/politics/t/maryland-sidesteps-electoral-college/#.WCfa6uErKRs

Maryland officially became the first state on Tuesday to approve a plan to give its electoral votes for president to the winner of the national popular vote instead of the candidate chosen by state voters.

updated 4/11/2007 11:17:13 AM ET

This was never implemented. To his credit, our Republican Gov and Lt Gov did not vote for Trump. But then again, they are not exactly the stereotypes people enjoy having of the Republican party:

I expect Trump to take revenge and force the FBI to move to Virginia instead of moving to MD and revitalizing the highly diverse Prince Georges county.

Posted: **Sun November 13, 2016 12:17 pm**

Strat wrote:Go on a hike. Go be in nature.

One of my favorite quotes: "Life is not as difficult as our mind makes it out to be" lately i change that to "Life is not as bad as facebook makes it out to be"

So much this. The echo chamber is probably at it's loudest volume ever.

Posted: **Sun November 13, 2016 1:07 pm**

tragabigzanda wrote:538's revisionism has already begun, with their top-page article: "Why FiveThirtyEight Gave Trump A Better Chance Than Almost Anyone Else." Christ.

...they did, though. Most other sites that do percentage forecasts had Clinton above a 90% chance to win. Some even had her at a 99% chance. 538 had Trump with about a 25% going into election day. All of those sites were looking at the same polls, 538's model just recognized a better chance for him--if the headline said "Why 538 Predicted a Trump Presidency," it'd be suspect.

Posted: **Sun November 13, 2016 1:57 pm**

Simple Torture wrote:
tragabigzanda wrote:538's revisionism has already begun, with their top-page article: "Why FiveThirtyEight Gave Trump A Better Chance Than Almost Anyone Else." Christ.
...they did, though. Most other sites that do percentage forecasts had Clinton above a 90% chance to win. Some even had her at a 99% chance. 538 had Trump with about a 25% going into election day. All of those sites were looking at the same polls, 538's model just recognized a better chance for him--if the headline said "Why 538 Predicted a Trump Presidency," it'd be suspect.

Look at this article from a week before the election:

The question is how robust Clinton’s lead would be to a modest error in the polling, or a further tightening of the race. So here’s a second set of simulations, drawn from cases in which Trump or Clinton win the national popular vote by less than 2 percentage points:

::snipped chart::

This isn’t a secure map for Clinton at all. In a race where the popular vote is roughly tied nationally, Colorado and New Hampshire are toss-ups, and Clinton’s chances are only 60 to 65 percent in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. She has quite a gauntlet to run through to hold her firewall, and she doesn’t have a lot of good backup options. While she could still hold on to Nevada, it doesn’t have enough electoral votes to make up for the loss of Michigan or Pennsylvania. And while she could win North Carolina or Florida if polls hold where they are now, they’d verge on being lost causes if the race shifts by another few points toward Trump. In fact, Clinton would probably lose the Electoral College in the event of a very close national popular vote.

It’s true that Trump would have to make a breakthrough somewhere, by winning at least one state in Clinton’s firewall. But that’s why it’s not only reasonable but 100 percent strategically correct for Trump to be campaigning in states such as Michigan and Wisconsin. (I’ll grant that New Mexico is more of a stretch.) Sure, Trump’s behind in these states, but he has to win somewhere where he’s behind — or he’s consigning himself to four more years in Trump Tower instead of the White House. Michigan and Wisconsin are as reasonable as any other targets: Trump isn’t any further behind in them than he is in higher-profile battleground states such as Pennsylvania, and the demographics are potentially more favorable for him.

If you want to debate a campaign’s geographic planning, Hillary Clinton spending time in Arizona is a much worse decision than Trump hanging out in Michigan or Wisconsin. Sure, she could win the state — but probably only if she’s having a strong night nationally. If the results are tight next Tuesday instead, Michigan and Wisconsin are much more likely to swing the election.

Lots of people have spent the past week criticizing 538, but I'm surprised more people aren't pointing to this article and saying, "Oh, shit, they basically described the scenario that allowed Trump to win."

Posted: **Sun November 13, 2016 2:37 pm**

Just read some of the Twitter responses to Oprah's "Hope Lives" remark... what fucking planet are these people on? Should have taken my own advice but I figure if Oprah would say "we can be unified and make this work", progressives would listen.

Posted: **Sun November 13, 2016 3:51 pm**

Team ST on 538.

Posted: **Sun November 13, 2016 4:00 pm**

tragabigzanda wrote:I'n having some sort of late-onset depression over this election. When it first happened, I was somehow able to gather enough information that I could understand the causes, where to allocate various feelings, etc. I was even happy and upbeat all day yesterday. But today... I'm just feeling pretty hopeless. All the liberal voices getting the headlines with their opinions -- Lena Dunham, Ethan Coen, etc -- are just killing me with their privileged opinions. And all my loved ones (family and friends) are back on Instagram sharing pictures of their food, going to watch movies, etc. It's like I'm watching the liberals react, and though I know there are some protests and calls to action beginning to take shape, there are way to many people wringing their hands or just tuning out.

It's been less than a week since it happened; it doesn't surprise me that people don't know how to react yet. I think people are extremely angry that the country elected a sexist bigot with authoritarian impulses, which is a better place to be then despondency.

It basically comes down to how he governs. If he ends up being a sober, center-right kind of guy, I don't think people will be happy, but yes, the rancor will die down (an unfortunate side result of this would be the absolute normalization of the kind of campaign he ran). But I consider this an almost impossibility; it just goes against everything Trump has illustrated in the campaign and in his public life. More likely, he will continue to be impulsive, with an instinct to get ugly and lash out at whoever is criticizing him. If he continues to be the person he was in the campaign (and considering who he's been all his life, I doubt that will change), I don't think you're going to see the energy devoted to ensuring he's a one-term candidate dissipate in the way it has in the past.

Posted: **Sun November 13, 2016 4:01 pm**

Green Habit wrote:Team ST on 538.

Yeah, that article is fairly unimpeachable.

Posted: **Sun November 13, 2016 4:15 pm**

Bi_3 wrote:Just read some of the Twitter responses to Oprah's "Hope Lives" remark... what fucking planet are these people on? Should have taken my own advice but I figure if Oprah would say "we can be unified and make this work", progressives would listen.

The irony here is that only Trump can create the calm she's talking about. If you are a Dreamer, an environment voter, or a member of the LGBT community (among others), this is a president who has expressed an interest in doing things that could cause irreparable harm in terms of its impact on you. If he were to begin talking about his actual plans as president, and if they were deeply tempered in the way his rhetoric about Obama has become, then you'd see a lot of calming down.

If Hillary had won on a platform that vowed to take all guns away, and to place the name of anyone owning more than 5 on a public "dangerous peoples" list, I wouldn't expect or try to scold gun owners to play nice about it, either.

Posted: **Sun November 13, 2016 4:16 pm**

FUCK ICE

Posted: **Sun November 13, 2016 4:29 pm**

I don't mean to beat this like a dead horse, but: 538 wasn't "wrong" because 538 doesn't conduct their own polls and doesn't excise outliers or "unexpected" polls (unlike some polling houses, which will not publish outliers). Nate Silver was wrong last summer when he predicted there was no way Trump would win the Republican nomination (much less the presidency), and he wrote a lengthy mea culpa explaining how he veered into prediction territory instead of sticking with the site's core methodology.

If you're looking for more traditional political field reporting, you're not going to get it with writers like Nate Silver or Harry Enten--they're numbers guys, and they want to know what the numbers predict and then they want to look back and see why the numbers were right or wrong. But that doesn't mean the site is devoid of that sort of reporting--Clare Malone and Farai Chideya have both been writing excellent pieces throughout the election cycle that put faces and voices to the people who actually vote throughout the country; I highly recommend following them on Twitter.

Red Mosquito

Election 2016

Re: Election 2016

Re: Election 2016

Re: Election 2016

Re: Election 2016

Re: Election 2016

Re: Election 2016

Re: Election 2016

Re: Election 2016

Re: Election 2016

Re: Election 2016

Re: Election 2016

Re: Election 2016

Re: Election 2016

Re: Election 2016

Re: Election 2016

Re: Election 2016

Re: Election 2016

Re: Election 2016

Re: Election 2016

Re: Election 2016