Ten oz

Republicans in the State block legitimate recounts from happening and there were dististrict (primarily those of color) that were never properly counted do to the state attorney locking looking everything down once media (FoxNews) called FL for Bush. Assuming those districts voted along the same lines as other districts with the same demographics and a real recount happened Gore won FL.

Please stop doing that. You mean "when Bush lost"?

Right wing propaganda has done a great job creating a fact free standard where everything is purely partisan and facts are opinions. Climate change science is almost always forced to share time of clmate change denial in all forms of media. Evolution forced to share time with intelligent design. Even well meaning media that makes moderate attempts are real journalism often end up equaling time between facts and myths, pseudo science and science, truth and manufactured nonsense. They have to so not to offend. The movement of people who demand news they prefer over news that is real has grown too large to be ignored.

All 50 isn't happening. Trump will win ID, WY, MT, UT, WV,KT, TN, LA, MS, AL, OK, and etc, etc, etc. The best Hillary can do is winning all swing states and maybe flipping AZ and GA. Sad, that a man like Trump can safely expect to win numerous States.

More frightening than any Trump statement, more disconerting, is that it appears that regardless of what Trump says there will be close to 40% of the electorate voting for him in November. Sure he implied gun owners kill Clinton if she appoints judges they don't like, whatever. Last week he asked Russia to prepetrate further crimes against her campaign. And lets face it he wasn't wrong about how the media would reward them for it. Trump is the canary in the coal mine. He has been able to accomplish this, a major party nomination for POTUS, when seemingly nothing but a twitter account. He kicked off his campaign to a room full of fake supporter paid to be in attendence and that story went nowhere. He criticized McCain for be a POW and that story went nowhere. Meanwhile his attacks and slogans for his rivals went viral. After several tough years media outlets finally have ratings this year because they provide live breaking updates of Trump's twitter account and ask the hard hitting questions like was Jeb Bush really "low energy" and where exactly was Megyn Kelly "bleed from". If Trump has accomplished this what is next? In the world of billionaires Trump is a light weight. A quasi successful New York real estate mogul who inherited most of everything he has. There are others far more dangerous than Trump out and Trump's success may inspire them to because more active than they already are. Trump has shown that with branding and entertaining, just get cable news rating and online blogs likes, the cost of running a major campaign isn't very high.The door is wide open to billionaires and Foriegn Gov'ts to overtly manipulate the system. The quid pro quo is to do so in a way that social media finds interesting and cable media can profit from.

@ Delta1212, The youth vote goes Democratic and the margins grow just about every year. As more youth become more highly educated and more diverse the rate of growth towards the Democratic party should accelerate. Trumps numbers currently are worse than the trend would predict but worse numbers than Romney in the youth demo is to be expected. Also, we are comparing actual vote tallies from previous elections to the results of a recent round of polls. http://www.pewresearch.org/2008/11/13/young-voters-in-the-2008-election/ Turnout accounts for the main differences in years where Democratic leaning youth isn't increased. There was a 6 point drop in participation of young voters in 12', 45% of young people, ages 18-29, voted in 2012, down from 51% in 2008. A lot at how youth voite make it obvious that provided turnout is increased so to will be the margins for Democrats. These numbers only are getting worse for the GOP: -Young White women’s influence in the youth electorate has decreased since 2008, while Hispanic influence has increased: 42% of young voters were persons of color, and for the first time, the Hispanic youth vote share surpassed the Black youth vote share. In 2008, the Hispanic youth vote represented 14% of the youth electorate. This year, it increased to 18%. Asian-American voters represented five percent of the youth vote in 2012. http://civicyouth.org/support-for-president-obama-varied-greatly-by-gender-and-race/ "Young people who are registered to vote turn out in high numbers, very close to the rate of older voters. In the 2008 election, 84% of those youth 18-29 who were registered to vote actually cast a ballot. Youth voter registration rates are much lower than older age groups’ rates, and as a result, guiding youth through the registration process is one potential step to closing the age-related voting gap. In 2008, on average, 59% of young Americans whose home state offered Election Day Registration voted; nine percentage points higher than those who did not live in EDR states." http://civicyouth.org/quick-facts/youth-voting/ The GOP understand all of this which is why they try to prohibit election day registration and push for laws that don't allow college students to vote where they attend school. When looking at the numbers and discussing how people vote there is always a lot more to it than simply looking at the final numbers and saying this or that group was swayed. Some groups in various states are oppressed and that negatively effects turnout by race and income. Obviously we will know much more when we have exit numbers from November but I don't think one can simply look at currently youth polling and make too many conclusions.

The stats start in 04' when Bush won 45% then show a massive drop to 32% in 08'. No one in todays 18-29yrs demo was old enough to vote in 04'. Also more highly educated people lean democrat too and young people today are more highly educated. If you compare the shift is the ethnic diversity and the shift in education of 04's 18-29yrs old and todays 18-29yrs there is a large difference. That difference will only grow. In the 20' election the youth demo will be even more diverse and even more well educated.

That speaks to the numbers I presented. Minorities and women vote Democrat and white males vote Republican. Todays youth is more diverse ethinically that previous generations and as such it make sense they'd lean Democrat. "U.S. Census Bureau estimates released today. Overall, millennials are more diverse than the generations that preceded them, with 44.2 percent being part of a minority race or ethnic group (that is, a group other than non-Hispanic, single-race white)." http://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2015/cb15-113.html

I disagree. Obama won 93% of the black vote and 71% of the latino vote in 12' while Romney won 60% of the white vote. Those numbers are nearly statistically identical to what polls reflect today. That implies no statistically significant group has been swayed this year despite how crazy Trump is or how unpopular Clinton is. We have a 2 party system and the overwhelming majority of people line up on one side or the other and generally do not move in the short term. Trends change with age through a persons life but not candidate to candidate, election to election. We have been at this for over a year. We have known since April more or less who the major candidates would be. I believe people know whom they will be supporting in November. It will take something significant to sway people at this point. Again, I know who I will vote for and believe everyone in the forum does as well.

@ Delta1212, let me start by saying I am not a huge fan of Clinton. Her foriegn policy is too hawkish and I do not trust her positions of trade. So please don't view the following as a ringing endorsement. Far too much is made of how unpopular Clinton is. No candidate in the primaries received more votes than Clinton. Not Trump and not Sanders. Clinton won the Democratic Primary by a more comfortable margin than either Obama or her husband Bill won theirs. We can discuss how unfair the primary system is but this year was not special. Basically all the rules applied to Obama and Bill Clinton. Poll numbers currently have Clinton leading by average of 7 points in the polls and winning every swing state. This is also better than Obama in 08' or 12' at this stage in the race. People say both Trump and Clinton are upopular. While true it isn't even or even close. Clinton has a 17 point favorability edge over Trump. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president/clintontrumpfavorability.html Clinton is people at 76% amongst Latinos. http://latinousa.org/2016/08/03/post-dnc-convention-latino-tracking-poll-clinton-76-trump-13-11/ Clinton is polling at over 90% amongst Blacks. http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/290490-poll-over-9-in-10-african-americans-back-clinton Clinton has a 23 point lead amongst women 58-35. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/national-poll-clinton-surging-among-women-leads-trump-by-8-226762 In my opinion too much is made of how unpopular Clinton is. She is currently performing very well in the polls. How much better can any presidential candidate honestly do in a 2 party partisan system? There is a cap on how popular any candidate can be. That said Clinton's numbers are very strong. Of course nothing is guaranteed. Wkileaks could drop proof of illegal activity by Clinton in October and force her out of the race. The current state of the election doesn't ensure Clinton will win. However we shouldn't conflate what could happen down the road with what it happening currently. We shouldn't parallel how unpopular Trump is with how unpopular Clinton is because they aren't equal. Clinton is in a historically strong position. I don't understand why so many are nervous about admitting that. Are we superstitious here in the Science Forum?

Both can exist at once. People can have their minds made up and choose not vote. It isn't an either or.

EdEarl makes an great point about humans not recognizing the damage being done. Phi for All & Prometheus make good points about politics rendering any Gov't limitation on family size impractical. Add to those that some people simply do not care, not about the future or the lives of anyone but themselves in general, and we have the situation we have. I am very skeptical anything in my lifetime will change. It is akin to the obesity epidemic in the U.S. and England. Despite everyone knowing it is a problem behavior is not changing and the problem continues to get worse. Evenwhen a problem is acknowledge and the method to solve the problem is known people often (normally) lack the will to change. The world will have to change greatly before population can be addressed. Changes that I struggle to wrap my head around will need to be made. Basic concepts like property ownership will become challanged in the future. Everyone wouldn't realistically be able to own property if our popluations were several times larger than they are today. At some point in the distant future land will have to become primarily if not exclusively a publically managed resource. The way we grow food, what food we eat, how energy is produced, and etc will all have to change in the future. These changes are not things humans will do out of enlightenment, in my opinion, but will be forced to do. We (human) will reach a critical point and either collaspe into war that reduces the population through extermination or find solutions.

Trump has lowered the bar enough that it would be really hard for him to lose the debates. Provided he doesn't drop f-bombs or throw something at Clinton I think the media narrative will be about how surprisingly well Trump does all things considered. It is an expectations game. No one expects Trump to know things so provided he knows anything he will over achieve. While Clinton is expect to know everything so all she has to do to have a terrible night is not know every detail of one thing. Trump supporters are getting everything they want. This is all a best case scenario. Trump supporters don't expect Trump to win. They just want their anger vented. Like an old man who complains that kids today dont whatever. The complaint isn't a call to action, it is just a complaint that serves no purpose beyond satisying their feelings. This year Conservatives broadly have turned their backs on their whole leadership: Bush family, Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, John McCain, and etc. They are acknowledging that they have supported bad politicians for decades. They are against everyone they previously voted for and refuse to admit some they previously voted against may have been better. They went too far down the Obama hatred spiral to admit Obama has done a decent job. So now they are all just falling on their swords. They know the swords will kill them but they rather dying insulting than live humble. I already know how I will vote. I believe everyone in this forum does as well. The notion of any meaningful number of "undecided" voters at this point in my opinion is a media fallacy. Media plays on the cynical attitude that people have; that despite knowing their own minds won't be changed perhaps others still will. This has been going for over a year now. I think we all know where we stand.

Brexit was polling close, ahead within the margin of error.

Why do so many keep insisting that we all must play scared as a means of ensuring turnout? Is "fear" what drives turn out? Were we all afraid of McCain and Romney? Did Bush win based on fear of Al Gore? I don't follow the fear logic. Trump is a flawed candidate that is struggling to even win support amongst leaders in his own party. He is being crushed in the polls nationally and state by state his path to an electoral win is even a bigger challenge. I see no reason to create a facade of fear in hopes of driving up turnout. I think people vote for what they want at higher rates than what they don't want.

The Obamas have been exactly what the country needed. After 50yrs of administrations that ratcheted up partisanship in order to have surrogates to defend them during scandal the Obama admin has been as even and calm as any. Bush beat the drums of war, used fear as a firiegn policy platform, and used patriotism as a justification to enact policies that hurt this country. Bill Clinton was a liar who didn't seem to trust his own base and regulary pandered to his opposition often against the interests of his supporters. Reagan used coded racial rhetoric to slash our infrastructure, committed impeachable acts with his CIA-centric foriegn policy, and allowed the executive branch to nothing more than a mouthpiece for wealthy industrialists. Nixon was paraniod crook with delusions of purpose and self worth. Obama has successfully managed 2 full terms without scandal. While that should be a minimum expectation history proves it rare. In the face of strong oppisition Obama always chose to be the cooler head. Often even helping his strongest critics down off the ledge. While many feel fustrated that more progress wasn't acheived I think they forget where we were in 2008, what the limits of executive power are, and how sold out the opposition has been. Michelle has been a treffic first lady. From carpool karaoke to mom dance on Fallon and her multiple appears of shows like Ellan, Colbert, and etc she always showed a familiarity with popular culture at large that is often missing from govt officials. She wasn't handled by strategist who had to tell her what "normal" Americans liked. She doesn't use buzz words. She knows what people like because she is one of us. I think she would make a terrific Senator, Governor, and one day President however I would never wish that on her. She has already been attacked and needless criticized by the right for everything imaginable. She has endured enough.

I can answer all those questions from my own perspective but doubt many self proclaiming conservatives would agree. To that point I accept that I am not a good advocate for their views.

Good question. I don't know that any of their current ideas even attempt to help. The objective seems to be to win, not help. The slogan is "Make America Great" but the platform reads as a list of problems that basically solve themselves once the U.S. forfiets on commitments to all people or things that are not white evangelics or conservative owned. It is a housing cleaning rather than a house reburbishing approach. The sort of one dimensional thinking that underlies many comic book hero stories. If Batman can just beat up enough bad people Gotham will be a utopia. While I cannot think of an example or circumstance where that appraoch is helpful I am hoping someone can.

Unfortunately the more radical members of the republican party now drive the bus. The party encouraged radicalism assuming they could contain it. Starting with the tea party wave radicals have swelled within the republcans ranks for years. People who do not understand that republicans and conservative pundits weren't serious when they implied Obama was a secret muslim, the Gov't plans to go door to door taking everyones guns, hordes of immigrants are raping and killing white people on the border, and etc, etc, etc. The republican party lost control of their rhetoric. No way they will work with Hillary Clinton. If you recall in 08' people were saying the same sort of stuff about Obama. That because he didn't have baggage and a sour history with the GOP as Clinton did he'd be able to work with both sides. We saw how that turned out. In my opinion it start to take a turn for the worse during the Iraq war push. That is when conservative pundits on cable news, talk radio, and etc all sort of came together is a daily collaboration with party leaders to really nail home talking points. It all went south though, the war was a huge mistake, cost trillions which contributed to the economic collaspe, and faith was lost on leadership broadly. Rather than breakig up the band they all just contiinued to collaberate, circling the drain on darker, more cynical, and worse ideas. The RNC has a platform. Conservative votes support that platform. So the question in this thread is what are some examples of those policies being successful.

Since the U.S. is in its election season and many political discussions are being had regarding conservative vs liberal policies I figured I'd bump this old thread. Where is the world can we see examples of successful conservative policies?

You are pretending as if there are not settled standards of behavior. There are many things as a society we have determined to unethical: stealing, lying, cheating, killing, raping, and etc. You are arguing a philosophical formality by ignoring that our society does in fact operate under various assumed ethics. While the concept of ethics can philosophically be considered subjective and evolving over time they do exist, are well known, and impact the way we live. In a purely philosophical discussion about the human mind and behavior one can abstractly argue that nothing is right or wrong. That everything just is what it is and each person forms an opinion. In context to actual praticed law, the question as stated by this thread, ethics are not abstract concepts. We are discussing something that is tangible. Our system of laws are real, our prisons are real, our inmates are real, and when we kill someone they really die. If everthing is subjective. Than why arrest anyone for anything? If ethics aren't contextually real and it is all just an individual opinion than every action is equally just. If I rape someone who is to say it is wrong; everything is "subjective" right? Society, for its own protection, does in fact have standards and ethics that we hold ourselves accountable for. It context to how our govt excutes law ethics is a real thing. They can be changed they are not monolithic yet do exist as an accepted standard. You seem to be using the way a standard is created to dismiss said standard. I cannot ignore the law simply because I feel it was derived from opinions I do not share. Rather if I want it changed I must lobby against it and express a strong counter opinion. Killing someone for reasons other than self defense is unethical by our (western culture) standards. Those standards may have been derived from subjective philosophy, religious beliefs, and etc but are the standards we live by. The speed limit on the highway I drive to get to the store has a speed limit which I feel is purely arbitrary but I still am accountable to follow it. To break that limit would be wrong. Society would levy a fine against me if I broke that subjectively produced speed limit.

Right, killing people for reasons other than self defense goes against our cultures prevailing morality. An odd ethical exception gets made for the death penalty and is supported by subjective arguments that ignore how morality in our culture views killing.

@ disarray, I agree. My post was aimed towards those who refuse to see the ethical perspective and demand that the entire debate is subjective. Obviously it is not. There is nothing frivolous about killing someone.

Good point. No one is arguing that the criminal justice system is perfect. Too many people have been exonerated over the years and the number you pointed out clearly reflect bias. Sadly knowing the the system is not fair doesn't seem to be an effective argument. The people who want the death penalty don't factor in how well the system works overall into their thinking. Rather they know that some of the people on death row are guilty of terrible crimes. So they focus on that. Focus on the ones that are guilty and ask themselves if that guilty person should die. Once they conclude yes they figure the gov't must have a means to kill and that the death penalty must exist. Proving that innocent people get sentenced to death doesn't change the blood lust many have for want to see guilt people put to death. It reflects a stubborness is their logic where the question of the death penalty existing is settled. Innocent people on death row is an obstacle to overcome and not evidence that the death penalty itself isn't useful. Most people wouldn't buy a termite infested house but most people who had a termite infested house would endure to repair the house. Once a person owns/has something they endeavor to keep it; even an idea. What is obviously bad from a purely objective standpoint is viewed as merely a gltch to an otherwise important thing or process to those who already committed themselves.

In my opinion with regards to those whom are against or don't appriciate diversity fear is what drives the most well intentioned amongst them. However for many of them there is a stubborn angriness rooted in an unhealthy over appreciation for their own ideology. A burn the whole thing down and lord over the ashes approarch. If it can't be the way they invision it than it shouldn't be at all. Ther are not affraid of change, afraid of others, but rather don't like or want things to be anyway but the way they choose. Perhaps it is partially inspired by monotheism? If one ascribes to a single God than they belief in a thing truth and a single way of things. I don't agree with what you said. However you don't make a terrible point. I was recently listening to Laurene Powell Jobs discussing an education program she donates her time and resources to and something she said struck me. When asked about how philanthropy could transform education across the country she quipped that it wasn't philanthropy job to do so. That we have a Gov't and that gov't has a Department of Education. People merely need to pay attention and participate in their Gov't to see to it they get the changes that are needed. Philanthropy can shine a light ky things but not replace the real work of Gov't. She was right in my opinion. While I wish my corperations operated in a manner that was more beneficial to society at large I understand it is not their purpose to do so. While the Gov't in the U.S. does allow far too much corperate lobbying the system isn't broken beyond the point of no return. If people chose to care, chose to vote in the right people as their representatives at the local, state, and federal level that would actually govern and believed it was their role to do so we could right the ship. Unfortunately we have fallen into a apathetic death spiral where on one side we elect people to Gov't specific to destory Gov't and on the other side elect people to office specifically to protect it. No one seems to actually be managing it or progressing it forward.