Politics

[earthling]

These are interesting. Won't indicate this election outcome but may give indication of future direction of demographic impact....









http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/ ... l-parties/

[aknowledgeableperson]

What happens to quite a few people as they age their political leanings may/will change. Will be interesting to see changes that are sure to occur in the next 20 to 30 years to the Xers and Millennials.

[earthling]

Yeah, has been mentioned many times but non-whites represent the largest portion of Millennials than any US generation ever and non-whites consistently stay over 70% blue as they age. And of the white Millennials, there are less red leaning than other generations before them in their 20s. More white M's have been brought up around broader range of races than any generation before them as well as an 'alternative is mainstream' change in culture that was underground in previous generations. And there is a major increase in religiously unaffiliated in just last 15 years (massive change in a short period compared to history of US) and they largely lean blue.

If the stats are directionally correct, the only demographic growing noticeably more towards red is less educated white men - a shrinking representation of overall demographics. Unless GOP can alter the demographics they represent, not looking good long term (as well as the ripping divide already occurring - Trump supporters vs establishment GOP). The DEM challenge is getting non-whites and those uninterested in politics to vote.

See pages 2 and 3 that show more..
http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/ ... l-parties/

[mean]

I don't even really know what point you're trying to make here. Like at first I was with you but then by the end it seems like you're just arguing that polling shows Muslims really are violent.

I agree that calling someone a racist makes it difficult to have a thoughtful discussion, and I've said as much already (of course, depending on exactly how racist they are, a thoughtful discussion might not be on the table in the first place). But there are plenty of Muslims out there who condemn jihadists, who condemn murdering gay people and women, etc. Whether the jihadists and the murderers are "perverting" Islam is a matter for Islamic theologians to debate and doesn't really matter to me. I don't give a shit whether your Islam is the "correct" Islam (I also don't believe there's any such thing, but as an atheist I also don't really care anyway), I only care about what your Islam (or your Christianity, or your atheism, for that matter) entails. And so I think, again, that it's perfectly easy to separate people who hate people from people who hate hateful beliefs. You don't have to tolerate beliefs that require people "to throw gays off buildings and kill women who have been raped and all sorts of other things." But when self-identified Muslims join you in condemning those things, you should probably also listen to them, instead of falling back on "well, I saw a poll that said Muslims agree with that stuff more than Christians and Jews do." I don't know what polls you're looking at so I'm just making up a number here, but if 80% of the estimated 1.6 billion Muslims in the world embrace those "illiberal and often violent beliefs," that still leaves over 300 million -- basically an entire America -- Muslims who don't. To judge a person not on their own merits and traits but because they belong to a larger group about which you have whatever pre-conceived notions, whether those notions are "statistically" accurate in the aggregate or not, is bigotry. That's just like literally what the word means, I don't really know how else to slice it. So I don't have any sympathy for Bill Maher being called a racist for being a racist. You can go on all you want about a particular set of beliefs that you find reprehensible and people who subscribe to them, but as soon as you assign a specific label to those beliefs that other people will also use to refer to a different set of beliefs, and start generalizing about the label instead of the beliefs, you're on dangerous ground.

The point I was trying to make, and I apologize if it was unclear, was not about Muslims or Islam, it was more or less about how the west seems to be unable to talk about Islamic violence without someone being called a racist. You just called Bill Maher a racist, which I think likely proves my point, although I suppose he might actually be one. I don't know a lot about Bill Maher, but I do know a lot about Sam Harris, which is actually who was being called a racist, and he just isn't. It's difficult for me to even parse what he has written and understand how anyone could come to that conclusion unless they just wanted to believe it ahead of time and fell victim to confirmation bias. He's very articulate, deliberate, and careful. Certainly moreso than I am, an uneducated oaf posting pretty much anonymously on a website.

[grovester]

For some reason this graphic was terrifying.

[phuqueue]

I don't even really know what point you're trying to make here. Like at first I was with you but then by the end it seems like you're just arguing that polling shows Muslims really are violent.

I agree that calling someone a racist makes it difficult to have a thoughtful discussion, and I've said as much already (of course, depending on exactly how racist they are, a thoughtful discussion might not be on the table in the first place). But there are plenty of Muslims out there who condemn jihadists, who condemn murdering gay people and women, etc. Whether the jihadists and the murderers are "perverting" Islam is a matter for Islamic theologians to debate and doesn't really matter to me. I don't give a shit whether your Islam is the "correct" Islam (I also don't believe there's any such thing, but as an atheist I also don't really care anyway), I only care about what your Islam (or your Christianity, or your atheism, for that matter) entails. And so I think, again, that it's perfectly easy to separate people who hate people from people who hate hateful beliefs. You don't have to tolerate beliefs that require people "to throw gays off buildings and kill women who have been raped and all sorts of other things." But when self-identified Muslims join you in condemning those things, you should probably also listen to them, instead of falling back on "well, I saw a poll that said Muslims agree with that stuff more than Christians and Jews do." I don't know what polls you're looking at so I'm just making up a number here, but if 80% of the estimated 1.6 billion Muslims in the world embrace those "illiberal and often violent beliefs," that still leaves over 300 million -- basically an entire America -- Muslims who don't. To judge a person not on their own merits and traits but because they belong to a larger group about which you have whatever pre-conceived notions, whether those notions are "statistically" accurate in the aggregate or not, is bigotry. That's just like literally what the word means, I don't really know how else to slice it. So I don't have any sympathy for Bill Maher being called a racist for being a racist. You can go on all you want about a particular set of beliefs that you find reprehensible and people who subscribe to them, but as soon as you assign a specific label to those beliefs that other people will also use to refer to a different set of beliefs, and start generalizing about the label instead of the beliefs, you're on dangerous ground.

The point I was trying to make, and I apologize if it was unclear, was not about Muslims or Islam, it was more or less about how the west seems to be unable to talk about Islamic violence without someone being called a racist. You just called Bill Maher a racist, which I think likely proves my point, although I suppose he might actually be one. I don't know a lot about Bill Maher, but I do know a lot about Sam Harris, which is actually who was being called a racist, and he just isn't. It's difficult for me to even parse what he has written and understand how anyone could come to that conclusion unless they just wanted to believe it ahead of time and fell victim to confirmation bias. He's very articulate, deliberate, and careful. Certainly moreso than I am, an uneducated oaf posting pretty much anonymously on a website.

I thought it was Bill Maher who Ben Affleck called a racist (which is why I specifically name-dropped him after you brought up Ben Affleck), but it doesn't really matter either way. I do think the wave of Richard Dawkins/Bill Maher/Sam Harris atheists who are eager to paint "Muslims" as the problem -- ostensibly because religion is the problem, but Islam is the worst religion, right??? -- are treading on very shaky ethical ground (if your ethics preclude bigotry, anyway), for exactly the reason that I already spelled out in the final sentence of my last post.

I also think, in general and regardless of his feelings toward Muslims or any other religious group, that Sam Harris is an idiot. This might be because the bulk of his "work" that I've read was the series of emails he exchanged with Noam Chomsky in which Chomsky completely embarrassed him and he didn't even realize it. This is neither here nor there in this particular conversation, but I feel an irresistible impulse (to borrow a legal term of art) to mention it any time somebody brings up Sam Harris. So I'm sorry for that, I just couldn't help myself.

I also think if your point is about the West's supposed inability "to talk about Islamic violence without someone being called a racist," then your point really is about Muslims and Islam, with a dash of "I'm not racist, but..." thrown in. This, again, is for the same reason that I already brought up in my last post.

For some reason this graphic was terrifying.

I think it's terrifying in part because of the asterisk -- it looks like we only have two configurations of voters saving us from Trump launching nukes at the next person who cracks a joke at his expense, but it's actually just "here are minority voters, who will save you from yourselves in any event" in one corner, and "here are different groups of white people, all of whom seek the end of the world" in every other iteration of the map.

[mean]

They are not eager to paint Muslims as the problem. There is a difference between people and ideas, and I can't help but sympathize with the right when the supposed progressive left decides brilliant philosophers and neuroscientists are "idiots" and "racists" without even reading what they've written outside of an ill-advised spar with Chomsky (which I'd argue Harris did not "lose"; the people who lost were those of us who naively hoped for a productive dialogue). I mean, let's be clear here, I'm complaining about our inability to have honest discussions without name-calling and conversation-stopping accusations of nefarious intent on one side, and in turn you are literally doing exactly that.

[phuqueue]

I mean you want to have "an honest discussion" about how Muslims are more violent than Christians and Jews. It seems like your vision of "an honest discussion" requires that I accept your premise as a starting point, which really isn't so honest after all. Condemning "Muslims" as some monolithically violent group is just literally what bigotry is. We coined a word to describe holding beliefs like that. I don't think that it's really mudslinging to make that point. Calling somebody a racist or a bigot for expressing a racist or bigoted viewpoint is fair. The one being called a bigot probably won't like it, probably won't feel like sitting down for a constructive conversation, but that doesn't make the point itself any less fair. And in any case, people like Bill Maher are well aware of all of this and don't care. Like, if you're talking to somebody who's literally never heard of implicit bias before, maybe it's worthwhile to patiently explain it to them and cut them some slack, but, again, I don't have any sympathy for Bill Maher being called a racist.

And yeah I called Sam Harris an idiot, but I don't think making digs at public figures who aren't participating in the conversation is really what's wrong with America. I'm not unloading ad hominems on people in this thread instead of addressing their arguments. I made my substantive points already in my post from a few days ago and I don't really see anything in your responses that demands more from me than to just repeat myself, so instead of doing that I jabbed Sammy. I'm happy to have your "honest discussion." I tried to have it a few days ago. But my honest input is that demanding a frank conversation about "Islamic violence" is begging the question. And you think this is just rude lefties calling people names and refusing to look at "reality." Of course, even if I am rude to Sam Harris, nobody dies, which is far better than what happens when the right convinces you to fear the poison skittles. That's also reality.

[earthling]

Yeah, has been mentioned many times but non-whites represent the largest portion of Millennials than any US generation ever and non-whites consistently stay over 70% blue as they age. And of the white Millennials, there are less red leaning than other generations before them in their 20s. More white M's have been brought up around broader range of races than any generation before them as well as an 'alternative is mainstream' change in culture that was underground in previous generations. And there is a major increase in religiously unaffiliated in just last 15 years (massive change in a short period compared to history of US) and they largely lean blue.

If the stats are directionally correct, the only demographic growing noticeably more towards red is less educated white men - a shrinking representation of overall demographics. Unless GOP can alter the demographics they represent, not looking good long term (as well as the ripping divide already occurring - Trump supporters vs establishment GOP). The DEM challenge is getting non-whites and those uninterested in politics to vote.

See pages 2 and 3 that show more..
http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/ ... l-parties/

This aligns pretty much exactly with the above. GOP has a challenge in the future...

http://www.people-press.org/2016/10/19/ ... ince-1992/

One shot GOP may have is if Hillary wins and really screws up her first 4 years. They may have a shot to get one more GOP Pres under their current ideology and path but long term, highly unlikely they will have much of a grasp if attempting to stay the same course. Though the GOP hold on the House due to gerrymandering could keep their currently ideology/path alive much longer than what represents the overall majority long term.

BTW, the widening acceptance that Hillary already has won this is a little surprising. She may be clearly ahead with the 'intention' of voters, especially with close states, but we still have no idea who will show up to vote. Establishment GOP didn't think Trump supporters would show up in primaries and it turned out they did (and DEM voters were lower turnout for primaries).

[earthling]

Colin Powell says he's voting for Hillary...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/c ... ton-230299

A former GOP Secretary of State and 4-star general apparently doesn't think she belongs in jail.

[phuqueue]

One shot GOP may have is if Hillary wins and really screws up her first 4 years. They may have a shot to get one more GOP Pres under their current ideology and path but long term, highly unlikely they will have much of a grasp if attempting to stay the same course.

This is certainly within the realm of possibility, but she'd have to have a bad enough first term to turn off her base even more than they were disillusioned by Obama's first term and face a stronger Republican challenger than Romney was in 2012, and it's hard to see both of these happening (or one of them happening so extremely that the other isn't needed). Trump steamrolled most of the GOP stable -- guys like Walker, Paul, Jeb!, etc barely got going in the first place, while Cruz and Rubio have been damaged (maybe or maybe not permanently, too early to say) and it seems Christie's career is basically over. Kasich, as an establishment guy who never broke, never kissed the ring, should escape unscathed, but it's not clear how broad his appeal actually is anyway. And Trump is the wild card here. If he actually ran again, there's every reason to believe he'd win the nom again unless the GOP changes their process. If he doesn't run again, but maintains his grudge against the GOP establishment, he could be a major thorn in their side, especially if he really does launch Trump TV. Or maybe he'll stay out of it, or even endorse the establishment, who even knows. But if he continues to divide the GOP, they'll have a real tough time, regardless of what Hillary does.

BTW, the widening acceptance that Hillary already has won this is a little surprising. She may be clearly ahead with the 'intention' of voters, especially with close states, but we still have no idea who will show up to vote. Establishment GOP didn't think Trump supporters would show up in primaries and it turned out they did (and DEM voters were lower turnout for primaries).

I mean the polls are more than just calling a thousand phone numbers and reporting the percentage responses they get. The raw data is weighted, they use likely voter models, etc. And all of this includes some guess work that is subject to error, but this is not a new thing and you can evaluate the accuracy of your methodology against actual electoral outcomes and refine your models further in the future. To say we "have no idea who will show up to vote" is really overstating the level of uncertainty. The polls are far from perfect, and they can definitely be wrong, but they're reporting more than just "intention to vote" among people who may or may not even bother. And with the near-unanimity between the different polls and the trend toward widening gaps (only a couple historically GOP-leaning polls still show Trump in the lead, and they show that lead shrinking, while all the other polls show HRC with a lead that has been growing over the past few weeks), it becomes harder and harder to see Trump's path to victory. It's not in the bag for HRC but it might be a Dewey defeats Truman-level upset if Trump pulls it off.

And the other thing is, it's no longer all just based on polls. People are actually voting now. We have not just polls but actual voter turnout data.

The fact that Dem turnout in the primaries was lower means essentially nothing. Historically there is basically no correlation here. Primary turnout is driven by the primary itself (the GOP's was very competitive, lots of candidates, lots of media coverage, and the Dem's was HRC vs one guy nobody ever heard of but came to know and, briefly, a couple other guys they never heard of and probably don't remember now). Bernie far outperformed expectations and pushed HRC more than she expected, but her victory was never really in doubt. On the other hand, the GOP was wide open. Even as Trump led, lots of people expected him to fade. Because there were so many guys splitting the vote, polls rarely showed anyone with a dominant lead (Trump even fell out of first in the polls here and there). As Trump began to rack up states, there was all the talk of alliances against him, a brokered convention, etc. The GOP primaries were dramatic. The Dem contest had more going on than expected, but it was not on the same level.

[earthling]

^Pretty good indicators, I'm just a little surprised it's being accepted as almost a given even though I agree it probably is the case - as in 'good probability' but not a given. And DEMs almost seem to be moving forward as if won.

Will be interesting to see how highly educated JoCo turns out. They went 40% Obama against Romney and about 45% Obama against McCain. There's a good chance they go Hillary, especially with Hillary expected to do well with suburban women and Trump not doing so well with upper educated people in general.

[grovester]

Seems like the GOP could solve their problem just by clearing the field for one candidate to take on Trump in the primary. I think all other things being equal, the non-trump wing outnumbers the trump wing. The problem, as phuque pointed out, is that the non-trump was split 3 or 4 ways in each state.

[phuqueue]

Seems like the GOP could solve their problem just by clearing the field for one candidate to take on Trump in the primary. I think all other things being equal, the non-trump wing outnumbers the trump wing. The problem, as phuque pointed out, is that the non-trump was split 3 or 4 ways in each state.

But that's easier said than done since all of these guys have their own personal ambitions -- hard to imagine guys like Rubio or especially Cruz willingly stepping aside for somebody else, just for the good of the party. And Trump remains a potentially disruptive factor whether he actually wins the nomination or not, because he has successfully pitted his base against the wider GOP. A lot of these people would have just unthinkingly voted for whomever the GOP trotted out before, but they particularly identify with Trump, and if he goes on Trump TV or Breitbart and tells them not to vote for the establishment guy who beat him (or beat his guy, if he's not the one actually running), how many of these people are going to listen to him? Not all of them, some? Enough to hinder the party? I mean when the GOP civil war began a few weeks ago some apparently big right wing blog (believe it or not, I'm not really plugged into the right wing blogosphere, so I'm not really familiar with it myself) endorsed "Ryan's Democratic opponent, whoever that is." That's the level of their disdain for the GOP establishment, that they'd endorse the Dems just to get them out of office (and it swings both ways, because you've also got guys like Glenn Beck saying "don't vote for Trump, even if it means Hillary wins"). Trump's supporters aren't going to drive Paul Ryan out of office (unfortunately), but they could cost the GOP in more competitive races, including the presidency. Obviously this is just idle speculation (and personal fantasy), at this point there's really no telling what's going to happen four years from now, but Trump could maybe be a force, if he wants to be, whether he's the candidate or not, and that's the GOP's real problem.

[earthling]

So the race may be getting tighter with the new email probe even if it's a FUD attempt. My younger brother (a moderate independent lawyer in Brooklyn) strongly dislikes both HRC/Trump - thinks Hillary might be indicted on technicality but would be less dangerous as Pres than Trump. What he hopes is that Hillary gets elected, then is indicted and Kaine becomes Pres. Wikileaks plans another round of claimed 'damaging leaks' against DEMs soon so if no more bombshells come for Trump or GOP...

Psychology 101 text books could dedicate a chapter on effectiveness of election FUD. Might be one of the most effective mind games played out so broadly, whether accurate info or not.

[WSPanic]

So the race may be getting tighter with the new email probe even if it's a FUD attempt. My younger brother (a moderate independent lawyer in Brooklyn) strongly dislikes both HRC/Trump - thinks Hillary might be indicted on technicality but would be less dangerous as Pres than Trump. What he hopes is that Hillary gets elected, then is indicted and Kaine becomes Pres. Wikileaks plans another round of claimed 'damaging leaks' against DEMs soon so if no more bombshells come for Trump or GOP...

Psychology 101 text books could dedicate a chapter on effectiveness of election FUD. Might be one of the most effective mind games played out so broadly, whether accurate info or not.

Just to skip WAY ahead - any chance President Kaine builds his library here in town, or will he choose Virginia?

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Can someone explain to me why this is a major story? It should be no surprise that one of Hillary's advisers would have emails from Hillary. Until the FBI actually finds something problematic, I don't get the scandal here.

[grovester]

You're correct, but the headlines now are "Clinton email" not "Trump pussy".

[bobbyhawks]

Can someone explain to me why this is a major story? It should be no surprise that one of Hillary's advisers would have emails from Hillary. Until the FBI actually finds something problematic, I don't get the scandal here.

Because people don't bother to try and understand the complexity and nuance of every situation. They stop at the headline and rarely read the story. It is the same perplexing scenario that unfolded with the Trump/Billy Bush tapes. Why people were suddenly set off by this tape when he had already accumulated more offensive statements over the course of more recent public events, I don't know. People don't analyze actual facts and make their own judgments but rather take someone else's impression and decide it fits the profile they would like to be in. So far, the Clinton email story hasn't changed one bit, but everybody wants to make it fit the narrative they have already decided is true.

[herrfrank]

Can someone explain to me why this is a major story? It should be no surprise that one of Hillary's advisers would have emails from Hillary. Until the FBI actually finds something problematic, I don't get the scandal here.

It's not a major story. It's optics, and it has everything to do with Anthony's Weiner.