Election 2016

[Maxus]

I've mostly given up on polls sites* except for one. That site is run by Nate Silver, who's a sort of "pollsters' pollster" and correctly called 2012.

He correctly called 50 out of 50 states in 2012, and 49 out of 50 in 2008. Whatever witchery he does, it evidently works.

[Whipstitch]

Funniest thing about Nate Silver is that some pundits tried to paint it like traditional pollsters must all hate him when really he just kinda proved what professionals already knew or at least suspected about noise and sample size. If anything he proved that polls are collectively valuable but lots of talking heads suck at their jobs.

[deaddmwalking]

And he has just addressed the latest USC poll showing Trump with a 2 point lead - my takeaway is that he agrees with me.

I wouldn't write much into it at this point. First, the poll uses the same pool so it'd be important to track how well the poll follows other polls. If they have selection bias, that's going to be compounded day after day. If it has been moving with other polls (and it looks like it probably has) for this result not to be an outlier you'd want to see it reflected in other polls as well.

It's also a National Poll. While those have value, the electoral college determines the winner. If for every state one candidate wins is by .5% but every state they lose is by 100%, they can still win the election with approximately 25% of the popular vote. Polls from battleground states have been favorable to Clinton lately.

One data point doesn't make a trend. I haven't seen anything from Trump that I think would indicate a real change in the nature of the race

[Ancient History]

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/08/21/donald-t ... ittle.html

I'm debating whether this is Trump being just crazy, or crazy like a fox. On the one hand, it looks like he's shepherding money, presumably to pay himself back once the campaign fails. On the other hand, we've seen that having more money doesn't necessarily move the needle in this campaign - Jeb Bush was a massive lesson in that - and Trump is pushing social media and free news coverage as far as he can. So is this actually a strategy, or strategery?

[Mechalich]

I'm debating whether this is Trump being just crazy, or crazy like a fox. On the one hand, it looks like he's shepherding money, presumably to pay himself back once the campaign fails. On the other hand, we've seen that having more money doesn't necessarily move the needle in this campaign - Jeb Bush was a massive lesson in that - and Trump is pushing social media and free news coverage as far as he can. So is this actually a strategy, or strategery?

Well, free media is great, when you're talking about people who watch the news (or regularly read online news or magazines or whatever), and that includes basically all primary voters - I mean, you pretty much have to be aware of that much to even find out when your primary even is. General election voters, especially the voters on the lower end of economic spectrum, not so much.

Mass media ads are important to people who's media awareness begins and ends with sports and what they hear at the bar. Likewise, ground game based turnout organizations are needed to get those people to go to the polls on election day.

If Trump's strategy was 'I get all this free media so I don't need to run ads and I'm going to spend millions on the best ground game in the history of democracy' that would be an unorthodox but at least potentially viable move, but Trump's ground staff is just as underdone as his ad buys. So I really don't see a viable strategy there.

[RobbyPants]

According to Silver, the national polls are tightening, but the state polls are not. By "tightening", he means Clinton had dropped from a consistent 7-8 point lead across all polls to a 5-6 point lead. On the state level (which matters more because of the electoral college), she's still doing quite well.

To date, Trump only has a 15% chance of winning, which is up about 4 points from a week ago. Obviously, a lot will change over the next two months, but technically, Trump is gaining, but not in meaningful ways.

[Ancient History]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/pl ... rrupt-one/

[Maj]

I have so wondered about that. The shit Trump's done has been mind-boggling. And yet... Silence.

[Ancient History]

I don't know how much of it is anti-liberal bias (like Kerry with the swift boat nonsense), how much of it is sexism, and how much of it is just...the news media still not taking Trump seriously as a candidate. His soundbites are generally what make the news, his gaffs, the stances he takes that let progressive-minded news hosts take thoughtful stands on racism and nativism. So they're still not hitting him for the things that they would hit a "real" candidate for.

I mean, the Clinton Foundation thing - the email thing - basically anything Clinton-corruption-related - just doesn't seem to die, despite the massive NOPE of nothing really being there. The media is fixated on running Clinton as corrupt, and Trump as gaff-prone asshole that says terrible shit. Which hurts Clinton but doesn't really hurt Trump because everybody knew that about Trump from the beginning.

[tussock]

Standard propaganda, doing what works. You attack the stronger candidate on their greatest comparative strengths. You attack the weaker candidate by mocking them.

Kerry was attacked for his recognised heroism under enemy fire (because Bush fled the war). Bush was called a monkey who didn't talk good.

Clinton is attacked for her book keeping and managerial skills (because Trump is corrupt and a blustering buffoon). Trump is racist and sexist and ignorant and mean.

Basically, it makes it very difficult to talk about Clinton's strengths to anyone who supports Trump, and makes it difficult to comprehend why anyone would vote for Trump to people who support Clinton.

[fbmf]

A Poli-Sci professor of mine said the same divide was there in the 2000 election with Gore playing the role of Clinton (i.e. - chaotic evil) and Dubya playing the role of Trump (i.e. - the blithering idiot)

Game On,
fbmf

[Mask_De_H]

If anything, Clinton is True Neutral, in the "any way the wind blows" sort of political maneuvering sense.

[Kaelik]

If anything, Clinton is True Neutral, in the "any way the wind blows" sort of political maneuvering sense.

To dare make this weird nonsense about D&D, I thought True Neutral were the people who literally fought against the way the wind was blowing to maintain a permanent dumb stalemate.

[Pixels]

That's one of the possibilities:

SRD[/url]]Neutral, "Undecided"

A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.

Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.

[Kaelik]

That's one of the possibilities:

SRD[/url]]Neutral, "Undecided"

A neutral character does what seems to be a good idea. She doesn’t feel strongly one way or the other when it comes to good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Most neutral characters exhibit a lack of conviction or bias rather than a commitment to neutrality. Such a character thinks of good as better than evil—after all, she would rather have good neighbors and rulers than evil ones. Still, she’s not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.

Some neutral characters, on the other hand, commit themselves philosophically to neutrality. They see good, evil, law, and chaos as prejudices and dangerous extremes. They advocate the middle way of neutrality as the best, most balanced road in the long run.

Neutral is the best alignment you can be because it means you act naturally, without prejudice or compulsion.

I'm talking about 2ed when Neutral and True Neutral were different things.

[RobbyPants]

I never caught on that they were separate things.

[Emerald]

AD&D actually didn't explicitly differentiate Neutral from True Neutral, but there were definitely two different shades of "true" neutrality described at different points in the rules.

The "undecided" version:

Those with a neutral moral stance often refrain from passing judgment on anything. They do not classify people, things, or events as good or evil; what is, is. In some cases, this is because the creature lacks the capacity to make a moral judgment (animals fall into this category). Few normal creatures do anything for good or evil reasons. They kill because they are hungry or threatened. They sleep where they find shelter. They do not worry about the moral consequences of their actions--their actions are instinctive.

After listening to the above arguments [regarding treasure distribution], the true neutral character decides not to say anything yet. He's not particularly concerned with any choice. If the issue can be solved without his becoming involved, great.

A deity whose sole attribute is that he is the protector/patron of a single community has an alignment appropriate to that community. Most are true neutral; their interest is in the survival of the community by any means, whether by law, chaos, good, or evil. Their priests may be of any alignment, but evil priests gather in one cult, neutral priests in another, and good priests in a third; at the DM's discretion, they don't have to get along. The flock may be of any alignment.

The "cosmic balance" version:

True neutral characters believe in the ultimate balance of forces, and they refuse to see actions as either good or evil. Since the majority of people in the world make judgments, true neutral characters are extremely rare. True neutrals do their best to avoid siding with the forces of either good or evil, law or chaos. It is their duty to see that all of these forces remain in balanced contention.

True neutral characters sometimes find themselves forced into rather peculiar alliances. To a great extent, they are compelled to side with the underdog in any given situation, sometimes even changing sides as the previous loser becomes the winner. A true neutral druid might join the local barony to put down a tribe of evil gnolls, only to drop out or switch sides when the gnolls were brought to the brink of destruction. He would seek to prevent either side from becoming too powerful. Clearly, there are very few true neutral characters in the world.

Neutral evil, neutral good, and true neutral: Areas dominated by these three alignments tend to adopt whatever government seems most expedient at the moment. A particular form of government lasts as long as the ruler or dynasty in power can maintain it. The people cooperate when it suits them--or, in the case of true neutrals, when the balance of forces must be preserved.

Such neutral territories often act as buffer states between lands of extreme alignment difference (for example, between a lawful good barony and a vile chaotic evil principality). They shift allegiance artfully to preserve their borders against the advances of both sides in a conflict.

Characters motivated by justice will probably be of good, lawful neutral, or true neutral alignments. Remember that each alignment has its own idea of what constitutes "justice"; to a true neutral thief, for instance, justice means maintaining the balances between good and evil, law and chaos

[tussock]

OMG the alignment thread! It's back!

2e was where they still had 1e's rules, that you were either pro-good, or pro-evil, or you sat in the middle and either backed the losing team to prevent victory or at least didn't participate in either side's victory.

So election 2016, it's big news that some kid didn't stand up for an anthem, and The Donald thinks that kid should go leave the country now, and soon The Donald could be in charge of making that happen for reals. But in other big news Paul LePage (hello Maine) thinks black people are the enemy of the state and

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/20 ... enemy.html

Look, a bad guy is a bad guy, I don’t care what color it is. When you go to war, if you know the enemy, the enemy dresses in red and you dress in blue, you shoot at red, don’t you? … You shoot at the enemy. You try to identify the enemy. And the enemy right now, the overwhelming majority of people coming in, are people of color or people of Hispanic origin. I can’t help that. I just can’t help it. Those are the facts.

"I don't care what color it is". "And the enemy right now ... are people of color ...".

It's a war, folks, you don't need evidence, if they look them black folks, you just shoot first and plant evidence later. Keep Maine safe for good honest white folks since 1820. But remember ...

]Mr. Gattine, this is Gov. Paul Richard LePage. I would like to talk to you about your comments about my being a racist, you (expletive). I want to talk to you. I want you to prove that I’m a racist. I’ve spent my life helping black people and you little son-of-a-bitch, socialist (expletive). You … I need you to, just friggin. I want you to record this and make it public because I am after you. Thank you.

Yeah, anyone who maybe hints he might be racist ("racially charged comments are not helpful"), just because black people are the enemy, fuck that guy.

Read the article if you like, it just gets worse.

...

The Huffington Post notes that 95 percent of Maine residents are white, per the last U.S. census, and according to the American Civil Liberties Union, research shows that black and white people deal drugs at similar rates in Maine, though police in the state are nine times more likely to arrest people of color for the crime.

And 80% of convictions are not white people. So, hey, that's only 98.7% racist bullshit.

What's that got to do with the election? This is one of Trump's big supporters up east. He's fine, he totally doesn't have to leave the country or anything of the sort, because he's just telling it like it is. The kid that didn't stand up, yeah, he's black.

Speaking of taking sides, please don't be Neutral, it's just not Good.

[Schleiermacher]

I had an interesting discussion with a friend last night that made me realize: I really don't know anything about what sort of economic stances and policies we can expect from Hillary.

Can anyone help me educate myself, either by explaining or by pointing me to some resources?

[sendaz]

While not quite as rabid as Trump about the US southern border, she has as a senator in the past pushed for an enhanced electronic fence to better control the borders while calling for immigration reform.
from a while back: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DckY2dRFtxc
more recently: https://youtu.be/AlFi0QUboxs

While Mexico as a country has benefited from trade deals like NAFTA, even if it has not really trickled down to all the actual workers there, many parties are calling for changes to it and this is going to be a hot topic for whoever wins.

[angelfromanotherpin]

Can anyone help me educate myself, either by explaining or by pointing me to some resources?

Clinton's campaign website has a lot of text (and some videos) on the subject.

Here's a relatively brief summary, as well as some context from her 2008 and previous positions.

[sendaz]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/ste ... d4b7bb4540

[Ancient History]

http://www.cosmopolitan.com/politics/a3 ... ve-policy/

[OgreBattle]

_D
BIMBOS
_C
_K
_N
_G

[Ancient History]

http://www.vox.com/2016/9/13/12901062/t ... ll-frontal