Hillary Clinton Paradox

[swansont]

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

In terms of votes? I think the effect of outside interference might only have been significant in very close races. "Other misinformation"...probably a more significant effect that would go both ways, for and against both Clinton and Trump...an effect that seems to have been ramped up for candidates in this coming mid terms.

This was a close race.

Misinformation was asymmetrical. 

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, rangerx said:

Of course, but my point was missed. Nixon knew his goose was cooked and digging in would have caused a constitutional crisis.

Trump knows his goose is cooked too, but unlike Nixon, he thinks he can stack the courts with loyalists, then lie his way out of it with the help of a screaming red hatted mob.

Seems the only fix for America at this point is a constitutional crisis.

Nixon knew he'd lose an impeachment vote in the Senate. Trump knows he won't. The situations are different. 

2 hours ago, swansont said:

You said standard deviation. For the total vote count, that doesn't apply.

I meant from election to election.

[iNow]

3 hours ago, rangerx said:

Trump knows his goose is cooked too, but unlike Nixon, he thinks he can stack the courts with loyalists, then lie his way out of it with the help of a screaming red hatted mob.

I believe you mean jackbooted brown shirted mob aided by bots and divisive online trolls

[Ten oz]

2 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

In terms of votes? I think the effect of outside interference might only have been significant in very close races. "Other misinformation"...probably a more significant effect that would go both ways, for and against both Clinton and Trump...an effect that seems to have been ramped up for candidates in this coming mid terms.

Another generalization which implies an equivalency which doesn't actually exist. Below are 4 examples, with citation, of illegal things involving disinformation and disinfranchisment which benefited Trump's campaign. Can you name such things which benefited Clinton's campaign? 

Voting ID, registration, and polling laws designed to disenfranchised groups who tend to voter Democrat have been battled in court for years now. Swings states like WI, GA, NC, FL, and etc have seen courts rule against Republicans noting the the deliberate disenfranchisement of voters. The case are numerous.Here is a wiki overview of some of it. 

In addition to share millions of people's data with Russia Cambridge Analytica also sought to suppress Black voters in swing States with target disinformation, Here. 

Then there is Russia. The Govt govt had cyber intelligence operative in the U.S. creating fake social media accounts to propagate disinformation designed to help Trump. They also illegally hacked Democrats and released partial bits of the illicitly obtained material as propaganda. Trump's campaign and Republicans broadly used that same material in their attacks. Here

Trump's former personal lawyer pled guilty to federal campaign finance felonies from activities he engaged in during the 2016 election for Trump's campaign. Trump's former personal lawyer cited Trump himself as having directed the illegal finance active.Here

 

[rangerx]

35 minutes ago, iNow said:

I believe you mean jackbooted brown shirted mob aided by bots and divisive online trolls

That too, yes.

[Raider5678]

21 hours ago, Ten oz said:

I don't understand this. We (USA) have already had independent Governors, Senators, House members, and etc. Those are all "major" areas. 

Yet the majority still lies in party hands.

We have a single independent governor in all of the United States of America. 

We have no independent members of the house.

We have 2 independent senators.

To seem viable to the general population, you have to have at least 33%(1/3) of the seats going to independents.

If you disagree then I guess we disagree. However, in my opinion, to seem viable a significant portion of the seats must be independent. 

21 hours ago, rangerx said:

A third party can present issues too, like splitting votes so an even lesser minority could seize power.

 

Perhaps the president, however, Congress would be much closer to being aligned by the population. The winner takes all system is only in case of the president. For the legislative branch, it's tons of smaller elections which are winner take all, but overall it's not.

6 hours ago, iNow said:

Against Trump, she should’ve won by 30 million votes. The fact that she didn’t and that it was as close as it was does, in some ways, speak to her overall weakness as a candidate unable to make passionate supporters (despite her clear qualifications as a policy maker and diplomat and the clear decades long campaign against her that made her so unpopular with so many in the first place).

This is one of the necessary evils of democracy sadly.

Candidates not only have to be smart and qualified(Trump and a few other presidents being the exception), they have to be likable. The only way to overcome this likability requirement would be regulating who could vote to those who are considered "educated" however I think those can be used for other agendas and I wouldn't support it.

6 hours ago, Ten oz said:

So the question is would Raider and Tar vote for Nicki Haley with the caveat being that only their answer in real time on election day itself matters. 

I honestly probably wouldn't vote in the Presidential election even if I could.

5 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Hillary Clinton isn't in office today yet those same people still support Trump. 

I can't speak for everywhere, however, one of the things I noticed is that people generally gauge how well they're currently doing with the people in the office.

My area supports Trump now more then they did when election time came around. However, several stores have open, several factories have reopened, and unemployment has plummeted. They cannot find enough workers here. The factory right down the road from my house is offering $18 an hour for the first 90 days, with a $2000 bonus if you stay all 90 days and a $21 an hour wage after the 90 days as well. There's another factory that is hiring people for slightly lower wages, however, they're trying to fill over 100 positions at any given time. Both of these factories are going to high school graduations and handing out job applications right there for students, and a lot of these students are taking them up on these offers.

Two years ago the best job you could find with a high school diploma was $12, may $15 if you got a higher position at those factories. And jobs were far and few between. Almost every high school student moved away as soon as they graduated because there were no jobs here.

Houses are being rebuilt, the county has enough money to repave and fix almost every road, and schools are offering more and more extracurricular activities as well as hiring more teachers for the core subjects, as well as extra subjects like engineering, computer programming, and other things. 

 

People around my area are directly attributing these things to Trump. Whether Trump caused this or not is not the discussion, but this is how my area is gauging the current administration's success. They're also looking at the state house and the state senate, both of which are absolutely dominated by Republicans now. They're not going to look into the policies, and read studies on how much of this success is caused by Obama, they're saying things look good now as compared to when Obama was in, and they like it and won't be voting to change it. 

 

Edited October 20, 2018 by Raider5678

[iNow]

1 hour ago, Raider5678 said:

The only way to overcome this likability requirement would be regulating who could vote to those who are considered "educated" however I think those can be used for other agendas and I wouldn't support it.

We agree about our lack of support for this idea, but disagree that restricting voter eligibility to only those who are “educated” would in any way address the need for likeability in candidates running for office. 

Education or not, we’re human and have tribal tendencies toward preferring those around us to be appealing and/or similar to ourselves in important ways (like values and passions). 

Education surely helps, but is hardly a panacea. Having a degree doesn’t mean you’re going to vote for someone whom you and the masses don’t like... aka, someone who isn’t “likable.” 

Edited October 21, 2018 by iNow

[Raider5678]

26 minutes ago, iNow said:

Education or not, we’re human and have tribal tendencies toward preferring those around us to be appealing and/or similar to ourselves in important ways (like values and passions). 

Education surely helps, but is hardly a panacea. Having a degree doesn’t mean you’re going to vote for someone whom you and the masses don’t like... aka, someone who isn’t “likable.” 

This is true. I conceded.

Edited October 21, 2018 by Raider5678

[iNow]

2 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

I honestly probably wouldn't vote in the Presidential election even if I could.

It’s off topic here, but I’d like to engage you on this comment because I think it’s a huge mistake, especially for a guy as obviously bright as you are. 

[Raider5678]

1 minute ago, iNow said:

It’s off topic here, but I’d like to engage you on this comment because I think it’s a huge mistake, especially for a guy as obviously bright as you are. 

I see it a different way.

One of my main goals is to push for independent candidates in the U.S. Me voting for one of the party candidates, ever so slightly, increases their opinion that people still support their party.

The fewer people that vote for party candidates, the more and more tempting it is for candidates to run as independents to try to collect the votes of those who aren't voting currently. Should an independent candidate show up who I support, I'd absolutely vote. If otherwise, there are no candidates that I support, I'd rather vote for neither.

[iNow]

Now that’s both ridiculous AND off topic.

You seem to think your nonvote is somehow a signal to independents that they should run. It’s not. Wake up, my friend. It’s merely a signal that you don’t count. End program. Badge not unlocked.

There’s a saying, “don’t sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect,” and it applies very much to candidates in elections.

In almost every case, the “lesser of two evils” is importantly and in ways extremely revant to each of our lives (and the lives of those we love) less evil.   

Since we’re still off topic, this will be my last comment on the matter unless you happen to open a separate thread. 

In the meantime, just vote. Please. The world needs more smart people being counted. 

[J.C.MacSwell]

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

Now that’s both ridiculous AND off topic.

You seem to think your nonvote is somehow a signal to independents that they should run. It’s not. Wake up, my friend. It’s merely a signal that you don’t count. End program. Badge not unlocked.

There’s a saying, “don’t sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect,” and it applies very much to candidates in elections.

In almost every case, the “lesser of two evils” is importantly and in ways extremely revant to each of our lives (and the lives of those we love) less evil.   

Since we’re still off topic, this will be my last comment on the matter unless you happen to open a separate thread. 

In the meantime, just vote. Please. The world needs more smart people being counted. 

Agree with this. Another option if you really can't do that is to spoil your ballot. I think that is a much stronger statement than (seemingly) not bothering to go out and vote.

[Ten oz]

19 minutes ago, iNow said:

Now that’s both ridiculous AND off topic.

You seem to think your nonvote is somehow a signal to independents that they should run. It’s not. Wake up, my friend. It’s merely a signal that you don’t count. End program. Badge not unlocked.

There’s a saying, “don’t sacrifice the good in pursuit of the perfect,” and it applies very much to candidates in elections.

In almost every case, the “lesser of two evils” is importantly and in ways extremely revant to each of our lives (and the lives of those we love) less evil.   

Since we’re still off topic, this will be my last comment on the matter unless you happen to open a separate thread. 

In the meantime, just vote. Please. The world needs more smart people being counted. 

Right, rather than not voting at all actively engaging in is the best way to push the direction of a party are show support for independents. Not merely just national election but one should engage in primaries as well. In primaries we normally get the closest we can to voting for candidates purely for policy idea unencumbered by concern for the 2 party horse race. 

19 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Agree with this. Another option if you really can't do that is to spoil your ballot. I think that is a much stronger statement than (seemingly) not bothering to go out and vote.

“And frankly if they had any doubt, they didn’t vote, and that was almost as good because a lot of people didn’t show up, because they felt good about me.”  - Donald Trump after the election talking about African American turnout.

[Raider5678]

Since I've been gone I've gotten into personal contact with several Senators, Representatives, State Senators, and State Representatives. I've discussed with the head of the YMCA about independents and I've gathered opinions from so many political leaders throughout our country that I can't even keep them straight. Additionally, I'm currently active in several different candidates political campaigns, and I'm planning on running myself in a few years using what I've learned helping to run campaigns for local politicians in my area. I've traveled across the country to conferences to debate matters of international and national importance and I've sat in on meetings with politicians in my state government and I'm also currently working in conjunction with my local state senator to discuss the possibility of proposing a major education reform for my state which will literally set Pennslyvania apart from the world.

I can personally tell you that one of the biggest fears of every candidate who is running is that someone will show up who will convince all those who don't usually vote to vote for them instead. Me, not voting will add to that fear, even if just by a little. 

I'm actively engaged in politics from the local level to the national level and trust me, I'm not voting out of lack of engaging, but because I've personally seen their fears and know this will add to it. Even if it's minuscule. 

 

And, as iNow stated, this is off topic and this is my last reply to this topic as well.

Edited October 21, 2018 by Raider5678

[iNow]

Your civic engagement is laudable.

Your rationalization that choosing not to vote in any way scares anyone other than your fellow citizens like me is laughable and sad. 

[mistermack]

I just looked at the (UK) betting odds for the next US President, and Trump is the favourite by a huge margin at 11/8 .

Hillary Clinton doesn't even get a price quoted at all. Even Oprah Winfrey and Christine Ford get a price at about 80/1.

Maybe they won't quote Hillary till she declares she's running.   https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2020/winner  

 

Edit: Correction, she's listed twice. The other listing has her at 100/1. The gamblers obviously don't rate her as a prospect.

Edited October 21, 2018 by mistermack

[DirtyChai]

48 minutes ago, mistermack said:

I just looked at the (UK) betting odds for the next US President, and Trump is the favourite by a huge margin at 11/8 .

Hillary Clinton doesn't even get a price quoted at all. Even Oprah Winfrey and Christine Ford get a price at about 80/1.

Well ya, they haven't even announced their candidacy yet, let alone secured the nomination.

If you have an extra 100-1000 bucks to burn, I'd put it on Oprah now before the odds start turning in her favor once she gets the nomination.

Huuuge Payday, It'll be great, lots of winning. . .

Edited October 21, 2018 by DirtyChai

[Ten oz]

12 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

People around my area are directly attributing these things to Trump. Whether Trump caused this or not is not the discussion, but this is how my area is gauging the current administration's success. They're also looking at the state house and the state senate, both of which are absolutely dominated by Republicans now. They're not going to look into the policies, and read studies on how much of this success is caused by Obama, they're saying things look good now as compared to when Obama was in, and they like it and won't be voting to change it. 

I truly wish people actually supported politicians based on the impact of their policies as you just described but the statistical trends clearly show otherwise. This happens every time there is a new President. Those who supported the President see that President as responsible for every good thing. It is just cognitive bias. Lets take a look at 36 yrs worth of Republican candidates and their share of the white (largest demo) vote: Reagan 61%, H.W. Bush 60%,  Dole + Perot  56%, Bush 58%,  McCain 55%, Romney 59%,  and Trump 57%. The average white support is 58% and no candidate has done 3 points better or worth than that average. I think when one considers all the different political battles, scandals, wars, economic conditions, 9/11, and etc it is astonishing how similar every election is. The issues clearly change. The candidates clearly change. The economy clearly changes. Who is doing the voting changes. Yet how groups vote doesn't seem to change much. 

9 hours ago, Raider5678 said:

Since I've been gone I've gotten into personal contact with several Senators, Representatives, State Senators, and State Representatives. I've discussed with the head of the YMCA about independents and I've gathered opinions from so many political leaders throughout our country that I can't even keep them straight. Additionally, I'm currently active in several different candidates political campaigns, and I'm planning on running myself in a few years using what I've learned helping to run campaigns for local politicians in my area. I've traveled across the country to conferences to debate matters of international and national importance and I've sat in on meetings with politicians in my state government and I'm also currently working in conjunction with my local state senator to discuss the possibility of proposing a major education reform for my state which will literally set Pennslyvania apart from the world.

I can personally tell you that one of the biggest fears of every candidate who is running is that someone will show up who will convince all those who don't usually vote to vote for them instead. Me, not voting will add to that fear, even if just by a little. 

I'm actively engaged in politics from the local level to the national level and trust me, I'm not voting out of lack of engaging, but because I've personally seen their fears and know this will add to it. Even if it's minuscule. 

 

And, as iNow stated, this is off topic and this is my last reply to this topic as well.

This isn't totally off topic. It relates a bit to the sort of paradox I am looking to discuss. We just need to circle it back it to Clinton. You seem to desire independent candidates as a means of expanding the policy debates and opening up the 2 dimensional arguing  yet are taking a 2 dimensional approach to it by not voting. The world presses forward while you aren't voting. Decisions are being made on Climate, Education, Arms, Trade, Criminal Justice, Healthcare, Taxes, Immigration, and etc. The world isn't in stasis and by not voting you are saying that known of those things matter less there are more independent candidates. It is the same sort of all or nothing attitude at the heart of 2 party partisanship. You aren't participating in trying to make the best choices available today because you want different choices. I think in time you will come to realizes that the best choices available is all we ever get in life. Different choices is a grass is always greener type of delusion. Even Steve Jobs who seemingly control his choices and took destiny into his own hands throughout his life died very young from cancer. We all have to deal with life as it is presented to us. Changing the world is a great dream to aspire to but you aren't going to make any head way by not voting. 

How that ties in with Clinton is nearly none of the discussion surrounding Clinton is policy based. People discuss her able or inability to win, how she should've or could've campaigned differently, but seldom ever address the policies she supports and whether or not they any good. You are stuck on independents winning, Trump supporters are stuck on Trump winning, Democrats are stuck on trying to figure out who can win, and no one focused on actual policy. One of the paradoxes I see with Clinton is that nearly all progressives and moderates (center left and right) agree with the majority on her platform yet she is broadly viewed as a divisive figure. Sanders, Warren, Harris, or even Kasich and Haley all have more partisan platforms than Clinton's.  

What a politician wants to do and does needs to matter more or at least much as who that politician is. That goes for Independent candidates as well.  

3 hours ago, mistermack said:

I just looked at the (UK) betting odds for the next US President, and Trump is the favourite by a huge margin at 11/8 .

Hillary Clinton doesn't even get a price quoted at all. Even Oprah Winfrey and Christine Ford get a price at about 80/1.

Maybe they won't quote Hillary till she declares she's running.   https://www.oddschecker.com/politics/us-politics/us-presidential-election-2020/winner  

 

Edit: Correction, she's listed twice. The other listing has her at 100/1. The gamblers obviously don't rate her as a prospect.

And what were Trump's odds in 2014 or Obama's in 2006? 

[Raider5678]

8 minutes ago, Ten oz said:

I truly wish people actually supported politicians based on the impact of their policies as you just described but the statistical trends clearly show otherwise. This happens every time there is a new President. Those who supported the President see that President as responsible for every good thing. It is just cognitive bias. Lets take a look at 36 yrs worth of Republican candidates and their share of the white (largest demo) vote: Reagan 61%, H.W. Bush 60%,  Dole + Perot  56%, Bush 58%,  McCain 55%, Romney 59%,  and Trump 57%. The average white support is 58% and no candidate has done 3 points better or worth than that average. I think when one considers all the different political battles, scandals, wars, economic conditions, 9/11, and etc it is astonishing how similar every election is. The issues clearly change. The candidates clearly change. The economy clearly changes. Who is doing the voting changes. Yet how groups vote doesn't seem to change much. 

I have no idea what the climate was much longer than prior to Obama, but I know that after Obama took office those factories started closing down and hundreds of people were laid off. I suspect that was part of the 2008 recession, however again the cognitive bias is a lot strong when you're looking at the exact same variable.

To them, jobs went away when Obama got in office. The factories closed down, the gas price went up, businesses and stores closed down, and the refinery closed down.

Trump gets into office, and less then a year later all of them are open again.

They don't know the same thing would have happened under Hillary and Trump. They just know that it happened under Trump.

 

What can we do to prevent this cognitive bias from entering into politics?

 

Edited October 21, 2018 by Raider5678

[Ten oz]

5 minutes ago, Raider5678 said:

What can we do to prevent this cognitive bias from entering into politics?

Everyone needs to votes. Election day should be a federal holiday and there should be a singular national standard for elections to national positions (House, Senate, President). Also every citizen should be able to to vote. That includes the several million people stripped by our criminal justice system. The current cognitive bias is so strong because such a large portions of the voting population is concentrated by partisans.  

[mistermack]

1 hour ago, Ten oz said:

And what were Trump's odds in 2014 or Obama's in 2006? 

Look it up. Google might help.

[Ten oz]

11 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Look it up. Google might help.

It was a Rhetorical question. In 2014 no one thought Trump would be a serious candidate or had any chance on winning. Likewise no one outside of Chicago even knew who Obama was at the start of 2006. Their names didn't even appear on lists of perspective candidates being done up early in those years. Similar can be said for Bill Clinton in 1990. H.W. Bush has over a 60% approval Rating for the first 3yrs of his first term. Who we all think may or may not be the most likely candidate in 2020 today isn't meaningful.  

[J.C.MacSwell]

20 minutes ago, mistermack said:

Look it up. Google might help.

I found this on Google...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetorical_question

[mistermack]

What would make a big difference to the betting odds is the existence of an incumbent president. 

Neither Obama nor Trump had to oust the current occupier of the White House. 

That's probably why they are offering such rubbish odds for a bet on Trump. 

[Ten oz]

6 minutes ago, mistermack said:

What would make a big difference to the betting odds is the existence of an incumbent president. 

Neither Obama nor Trump had to oust the current occupier of the White House. 

That's probably why they are offering such rubbish odds for a bet on Trump. 

As I already pointed out Bush was a very popular incumbent in 1990. Bushes approvals moved into the 60's in 90;' and actually climbed all the way into the 80's in 91', Here. Bush was substantially more than Trump.  Meanwhile Bill Clinton wasn't able to muster up enough support to compete in the 88' Democratic Primary and in 90' was running for re-election in AR. Yet Bush lost in 92'.