Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Live Presidential Forecast

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 318 posts

Re: Live Presidential Forecast

#261

Post by [deleted] »

ant6n wrote: post #244
75j wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you realize that Clinton is actually a Republican too? I'm not calling it our Brexit moment, nor am I remotely excited about the next 4 years. I don't know what kind of moment it is, but let's not pretend that Clinton was a safe alternative. She is as dangerous as Trump, if not more so. I personally would have liked to see Jill Stein hit 5%, but that looks unlikely.

Clinton may have been a centrist and not helped the Poor. Trump won't help the poor, so it's at best a toss-up. The problem is that there are a lot of people who are not white, male, Christian, heterosexual, natural-born. And it's gonna get difficult for all those people. Clinton would've left them alone, Trump is fanning the flames of xenophobia.

[deleted]

Re: Live Presidential Forecast

#262

Post by flukus »

ant6n wrote: post #252
flukus wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The racist part was the name calling. The post overall sounded derisive. The people your criticizing want job security, not lynchings.

Are you saying Trump is not a racist? Are you saying that it's not true that many Trump supporters are openly racist? Are you saying this is not racism: https://twitter.com/SRowntreeNews/status/796141495573155840 ? Calling somebody out as racist is not name-calling if it's true. I feel like the US has become this bizarre place where it's okay to be racist and sexist, but if you call people out for it you're the bad g…

Many are, but so are many (assumed) Clinton supporters:

http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/27/berkeley-activists-block...

And as I said elsewhere, many of Trumps votes are coming from people that voted for Obama last time. Do you really think they are racist?

Re: Live Presidential Forecast

#263

Post by reitanqild »

ant6n wrote: post #252
flukus wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The racist part was the name calling. The post overall sounded derisive. The people your criticizing want job security, not lynchings.

Are you saying Trump is not a racist? Are you saying that it's not true that many Trump supporters are openly racist? Are you saying this is not racism: https://twitter.com/SRowntreeNews/status/796141495573155840 ? Calling somebody out as racist is not name-calling if it's true. I feel like the US has become this bizarre place where it's okay to be racist and sexist, but if you call people out for it you're the bad g…

Quoting you:

> (, racist) working class folks

You didn't say Trump was, you tried to smear the whole working class or at least the ones that voted for Trump.

I don't like Trump, I just personally refuse to think that 50% of Americans are stupid racists.

Re: Live Presidential Forecast

#264

Post by Natsu »

humanrebar wrote: post #184
75j wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Trump is a monster, but this feels sort of good knowing how Clinton and her supporters acted. If only people could have seen the light about the Clintons a year ago, then maybe there would've been better choices today. And remember! The blame for a Trump presidency lies with none other than Hillary Clinton. She's the one that cheated a popular opponent in the primaries, that strategized to promote Trump during t…

Well, to be Machiavellian for a minute, Trump is the only candidate that Clinton has a prayer against. The other Republicans consistently outperform Trump in the polls. On the other hand, this has been a bad year for pollsters. If she really believed in her causes and not her career, she could have decided not to run and backed a promising successor a long time ago.

Thanks to Wikileaks, we know that the Democrats wanted to ensure that the Republicans would nominate someone more extreme. Look at the PDF attachment here. There's more than just this quote, too:

Operationalizing the Strategy Pied Piper Candidates

There are two ways to approach the strategies mentioned above. The first is to use the field as a whole to inflict damage on itself similar to what happened to Mitt Romney in 2012. The variety of candidates is a positive here, and many of the lesser known can serve as a cudgel to move the more established candidates further to the right. In this scenario, we don’t want to marginalize the more extreme candidates, but make them more “Pied Piper” candidates who actually represent the mainstream of the Republican Party. Pied Piper candidates include, but aren’t limited to:

• Ted Cruz

• Donald Trump

• Ben Carson

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1120 (Read the PDF attached)

Re: Live Presidential Forecast

#265

Post by [deleted] »

M_Grey wrote: post #239
Inconel wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who very much dislikes the prospect of a Trump presidency, and is in fact well to the left of the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton on most social and economic issues, I find this line of thinking quite troubling. Perhaps rather than hoping for assassinations or voter fraud, those of us who identify as "progressive" could instead channel that mental energy into finding ways to better appeal to large gro…

You know what? People as a group are just too stupid and easily manipulated to be helped, and given that Trump now gets to pick (probably) 3 SCOTUS seats? We're cooked. Basically, for most of us here, the rest of our lives will have this election hanging over us, for the implications on the SCOTUS alone. As I said, people who can afford it are going to leave in droves.

[deleted]

Re: Live Presidential Forecast

#266

Post by ihsw »

humanrebar wrote: post #184
75j wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. Trump is a monster, but this feels sort of good knowing how Clinton and her supporters acted. If only people could have seen the light about the Clintons a year ago, then maybe there would've been better choices today. And remember! The blame for a Trump presidency lies with none other than Hillary Clinton. She's the one that cheated a popular opponent in the primaries, that strategized to promote Trump during t…

Well, to be Machiavellian for a minute, Trump is the only candidate that Clinton has a prayer against. The other Republicans consistently outperform Trump in the polls. On the other hand, this has been a bad year for pollsters. If she really believed in her causes and not her career, she could have decided not to run and backed a promising successor a long time ago.

Is there anyone else that could have secured a majority in the House and potentially (as of 1247am EST) the Senate? I doubt that, DC politics is more about trading wins like potheads passing the joint around. I don't mean that pejoratively but literally -- Republicans and Democrats trade wins and losses to curry favor with one-another, meanwhile the interests of the American people are secondary to this political snobbery.

Furthermore, who else could have rallied the masses to vote so thoroughly? A Jeb vs Hillary election would have been very dull, almost depressingly so, meanwhile a Cruz vs Hillary election would have bordered on hopelessly disinteresting.

Re: Live Presidential Forecast

#267

Post by ant6n »

flukus wrote: post #262
ant6n wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying Trump is not a racist? Are you saying that it's not true that many Trump supporters are openly racist? Are you saying this is not racism: https://twitter.com/SRowntreeNews/status/796141495573155840 ? Calling somebody out as racist is not name-calling if it's true. I feel like the US has become this bizarre place where it's okay to be racist and sexist, but if you call people out for it you're the bad g…

Many are, but so are many (assumed) Clinton supporters: http://thefederalist.com/2016/10/27/berkeley-activists-block... And as I said elsewhere, many of Trumps votes are coming from people that voted for Obama last time. Do you really think they are racist?

(assumed)

Re: Live Presidential Forecast

#268

Post by the_duke »

75j wrote: post #237
the_duke wrote: post #153

If any mod is reading this, I think it may be smart to close this thread down, since it will spiral into political drama very soon. (I assume their will be a post discussing the result...)

This thread is very civil so far. I complained recently that political discussions are too easily suppressed on HN, and dang's response was that they inevitably veer into flame wars, and that preemptively flagging political threads is necessary / ok. I hope this thread continues to disprove that, since HN is an important place for political discussion to be happening.

I love rational political discourse, but there are plenty of places where you can discuss those things on the web.

I rather enjoy that the mods apparently want to keep those topics a bit out of the limelight and focus on technical subjects.

Re: Live Presidential Forecast

#269

Post by flukus »

Inconel wrote: post #160
flukus wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why make a new one and not secede?

I'm not particularly well informed on the actual logistics of mounting a secession from the rest of the US, although at the very least I would imagine securing water rights would itself be a significant challenge for SV, but I very much doubt the "disruptors" in SV have the wherewithal to stomach such an endeavor.

I'm not super familiar with the geography there but I'd imagine everything west of the rockies (is that the right mountain range) would go with California and I thought that this was the source of the water.

Re: Live Presidential Forecast

#270

Post by Jtsummers »

tedunangst wrote: post #170
protomyth wrote: post #138

I leave work and I see Clinton is the probable winner. I drive home, get some dinner, and I get a text from the WSJ that stock futures are crashing because Trump might win?!? What the friggin hell pollsters? I get the feeling some explaining on the part of the newspapers and new networks is in order.

Well, the reason we still have the election instead of just polling people is because the polls aren't always accurate.

Polls don't tell you who will vote.

60% of a state may be for one candidate, but if only 80% of them go out to vote, the other candidate will win.

That's what we're seeing here today.

Post reply on HN