USA Election

[cjp]

How did they ever get to this world changing event and having to choose between Trump or Clinton?

Of all the many people in the USA these two power hungry people are all they can come up with?

It is so scary.

It will all be over in 24 hours.

 

[90sWereBetter]

I reckon Hillary will scrape out the win on the back of having a much better ground game than Drumpf, as well as energising the Latino vote, but I have been mentally preparing myself for a Drumpf victory for some time now, so pick your poison I guess.

To think this could have been a civil election battle between Bernie Sanders and John Kasich (though I am at liberties to point out that Kasich is no moderate, he only looked like one in the GOP primary because the other 16 GOP candidates were bat**** insane).

Still, I suppose the one upside to Drumpf (if there is one) is that he isn't Ted Cruz. That bloke is legitimately terrifying.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Let us be thankful that when it comes to General Elections in Britain, we do not have to endure the same time period of the current American "never-ending-story" campaigning time period...

 

[Glenmutchkin]

Let us be thankful that when it comes to General Elections in Britain, we do not have to endure the same time period of the current American "never-ending-story" campaigning time period...

Thanks to fixed term Parliaments we are moving towards the US scenario.

 

[edwin_m]

I do see the trend of "sod the truth, say anything that might help me win" finding its way into UK politics too.

 

[me123]

It will all be over in 24 hours.

But will it?

Drumpf won't accept the result of the election, so if he loses (which is the likely scenario - I'll elaborate below) it'll go on and on and on until he tires of his own voice (which will likely be shortly after his funeral).

The trend looks like Hillary will likely win (thank heavens), but with the ridiculous electoral college it's not quite that simple. Drumpf has a very reasonable chance of winning the popular vote, but that does not necessarily translate into an electoral college win, as Gore found out in 2000. It is certainly a very possible scenario that Drumpf will lose the election, but actually have more votes than Hillary. And that's a really terrifying thought. His supporters are... let's use a diplomatic term and say "passionate". They also have lots of guns. They may well start a civil war.

Hillary would probably go quietly if she loses, but then we've got president Drumpf for the next four to eight years. For what it's worth, if I were an American I'd be on the streets trying to get support for Hillary. Not because I particularly like her, just because of the two she's marginally less likely to cause a global nuclear apocalypse. And if she does cause a global nuclear apocalypse, it'll be for a much better reason than someone on Twatter insulting her hairstyle.

Frankly, I've had it with politics. On a seemingly global level, the quality of political debate has been dire in the last 12 months. I've actually been trying to follow the debate in the US, and there really are no major issues being discussed. Drumpf has no real policies beyond building a wall (a policy which is so fundamentally flawed even a child could explain why it's going to fail) and blocking entry to Muslims (again, most children could explain the folly in this, particularly those familiar with the first amendment). Then again, we voted to leave the EU based on an equally flimsy manifesto...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Still, I suppose the one upside to Drumpf (if there is one) is that he isn't Ted Cruz. That bloke is legitimately terrifying.

[youtube]EaZGaJrd3x8[/youtube]

 

[TheKnightWho]

But will it?

Drumpf won't accept the result of the election, so if he loses (which is the likely scenario - I'll elaborate below) it'll go on and on and on until he tires of his own voice (which will likely be shortly after his funeral).

The trend looks like Hillary will likely win (thank heavens), but with the ridiculous electoral college it's not quite that simple. Drumpf has a very reasonable chance of winning the popular vote, but that does not necessarily translate into an electoral college win, as Gore found out in 2000. It is certainly a very possible scenario that Drumpf will lose the election, but actually have more votes than Hillary. And that's a really terrifying thought. His supporters are... let's use a diplomatic term and say "passionate". They also have lots of guns. They may well start a civil war.

Hillary would probably go quietly if she loses, but then we've got president Drumpf for the next four to eight years. For what it's worth, if I were an American I'd be on the streets trying to get support for Hillary. Not because I particularly like her, just because of the two she's marginally less likely to cause a global nuclear apocalypse. And if she does cause a global nuclear apocalypse, it'll be for a much better reason than someone on Twatter insulting her hairstyle.

Frankly, I've had it with politics. On a seemingly global level, the quality of political debate has been dire in the last 12 months. I've actually been trying to follow the debate in the US, and there really are no major issues being discussed. Drumpf has no real policies beyond building a wall (a policy which is so fundamentally flawed even a child could explain why it's going to fail) and blocking entry to Muslims (again, most children could explain the folly in this, particularly those familiar with the first amendment). Then again, we voted to leave the EU based on an equally flimsy manifesto...

It's actually far more likely to be the other way around, due to the undue influence small, mid-Western States have on the electoral college - they're almost entirely heavily Republican.

 

[DaleCooper]

Of all the many people in the USA these two power hungry people are all they can come up with?

Who other than the power hungry put themselves forward for positions of power?

 

[Howardh]

Who other than the power hungry put themselves forward for positions of power?

Corbyn..on the grounds that he will never be.........


Sorry

 

[DarloRich]

How did they ever get to this world changing event and having to choose between Trump or Clinton?

Of all the many people in the USA these two power hungry people are all they can come up with?

It is so scary.

It will all be over in 24 hours.

Terrifying - They could choose a man who seems to be controlled by his hair and is such a risk that his own campaign took his twitter account off him, who hasn't told the truth since day 1, has an enviable record of business failure, a man who has changed his political standpoint like the weather, has views that make neanderthals look intelligent, has an interesting take on charity, has been coy with releasing his tax returns, has an interesting relationship with Putin, would struggle to find France on a map and whose ideas on world affairs is to shout USA!

Or a woman who has been secretary of state, has experience of politics and world affairs,appears respected on the world stage and whose only issue seems to have been to send some emails.

i know who i would choose!

PS that Machine gun bacon is genius! What a bunch of loons.

 

[me123]

It's actually far more likely to be the other way around, due to the undue influence small, mid-Western States have on the electoral college - they're almost entirely heavily Republican.

I disagree.

The small states do have a disproportionate weight and are very staunchly Republican, yes. But they are still very small in the grand scheme of things. But lots of the states have very small numbers of electoral college votes (Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas only have three apiece, for example). On the whole, the Drumpf safe seats are largely only giving him single figures of electors. The big exception is of course Texas (38).

By Contrast, Clinton's safe seats are generally larger. California has a whopping 55, Washington 12, Illinois 20, New York 29, Maryland 10, New Jersey 14... Again, not all of the Democratic states are large of course (Vermont has 3 votes) but you get the idea.

My point is, if you add up all the safe states (the states that are very likely to go to one candidate or the other) you'll end up with a big discrepancy. Clinton has 242 safe seats, and Drumpf has 180[1]. Either candidate will need 270 to win the election, so Clinton needs fewer swing states that Drumpf does. (Exact numbers may vary, but the point is Clinton has more safe votes than Drumpf).

This means that Clinton only needs to win one or two of the swing states in order to secure the presidency. On the other hand, Drumpf is left needing to win lots of the swing states (most notably Florida - many would say crucially) if he is to stand a chance. This means that Clinton needs fewer actual voters to swing than Drumpf will.

If you look at the actual polling, Clinton is ahead consistently, but the margin is so narrow that the real result may well be that Drumpf leading, and still within the margin of error.[2]

So I would argue that the probability of Drumpf winning the popular vote is much higher than the probability of him winning the electoral college. Conversely, the probability of Clinton winning the popular vote is lower than that of her winning the electoral college. This leads to the very real possibility that Drumpf could win the popular vote, and not the electoral college.

[1]http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/us-election-will-trump-clinton-win-electoral-college-swing-states-a7402351.html
[2]http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

 

[J-2739]

Soooo excited yet scared!! Got sky news on

Update me, but aren't the Southern States usually Republic?

 

[Busaholic]

OK, I'll be first on here to predict a result - Clinton 303 (she needs 270). With my track record on the Brexit vote, that probably means Trump will win by a country mile, in which case I must look out my cyanide pills.

 

[Domh245]

OK, I'll be first on here to predict a result - Clinton 303 (she needs 270). With my track record on the Brexit vote, that probably means Trump will win by a country mile, in which case I must look out my cyanide pills.

Perhaps you wouldn't mind predicting a Trump win?

 

[507021]

I think Hillary Clinton will win, personally.

 

[ainsworth74]

Update me, but aren't the Southern States usually Republic?

Since about 1964 and the passing of the Civil Rights act. Before then they were known for voting Democrat and after that there has been a fairly continuous slide towards the Republican Part which today means that they are nearly solidly Republican.

 

[backontrack]

[youtube]EaZGaJrd3x8[/youtube]

Gawd, that laugh... hock:

 

[J-2739]

Since about 1964 and the passing of the Civil Rights act. Before then they were known for voting Democrat and after that there has been a fairly continuous slide towards the Republican Part which today means that they are nearly solidly Republican.

Thanks, I thought due to the high percentage of blacks there, the Democrats would have a large following also.

Both of these people are clowns, and I secretly hope they cast the same vote so one can acuse the other of tapering the votes then we can quietly lock them up in a 7/11 store so they can continue their damn argument.

 

[me123]

Update me, but aren't the Southern States usually Republic?

It's a bit more complex than a North-South divide.

Democrats have safe seats largely near major centres of population - so around the Eastern parts of the Mid West (the so-called Rust belt, around Chicago); the North East Corridor and the West Coast. The more rural states tend to be Republican.

It's not as simple as North-South. There are states in the North (the Dakotas, Montana, Idaho...) that are staunchly Republican, and the Democrats do have a foothold in Southern states (New Mexico, Colorado, North Carolina are all likely to go blue). And Florida is a key swing state - some would argue that it's one of the most important states in the election.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I disagree.

The small states do have a disproportionate weight and are very staunchly Republican, yes. But they are still very small in the grand scheme of things. But lots of the states have very small numbers of electoral college votes (Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas only have three apiece, for example). On the whole, the Drumpf safe seats are largely only giving him single figures of electors. The big exception is of course Texas (38).

By Contrast, Clinton's safe seats are generally larger. California has a whopping 55, Washington 12, Illinois 20, New York 29, Maryland 10, New Jersey 14... Again, not all of the Democratic states are large of course (Vermont has 3 votes) but you get the idea.

My point is, if you add up all the safe states (the states that are very likely to go to one candidate or the other) you'll end up with a big discrepancy. Clinton has 242 safe seats, and Drumpf has 180[1]. Either candidate will need 270 to win the election, so Clinton needs fewer swing states that Drumpf does. (Exact numbers may vary, but the point is Clinton has more safe votes than Drumpf).

This means that Clinton only needs to win one or two of the swing states in order to secure the presidency. On the other hand, Drumpf is left needing to win lots of the swing states (most notably Florida - many would say crucially) if he is to stand a chance. This means that Clinton needs fewer actual voters to swing than Drumpf will.

If you look at the actual polling, Clinton is ahead consistently, but the margin is so narrow that the real result may well be that Drumpf leading, and still within the margin of error.[2]

So I would argue that the probability of Drumpf winning the popular vote is much higher than the probability of him winning the electoral college. Conversely, the probability of Clinton winning the popular vote is lower than that of her winning the electoral college. This leads to the very real possibility that Drumpf could win the popular vote, and not the electoral college.

[1]http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/us-election-will-trump-clinton-win-electoral-college-swing-states-a7402351.html
[2]http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

I'll leave you with the FiveThirtyEight forecast with the likelihoods for our differing opinions (10.5% Clinton gets the popular vote but loses; 0.5% for the converse.)

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

The problem with your analysis is that whilst Clinton needs fewer swing states, her safe seats are so overwhelmingly huge (California, New York etc.) and Trump's so numerous and tiny (all the small mid-west states, with the only notable exception being Texas) that it more than cancels out any discrepancies between the swing states.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I disagree.

The small states do have a disproportionate weight and are very staunchly Republican, yes. But they are still very small in the grand scheme of things. But lots of the states have very small numbers of electoral college votes (Montana, Wyoming and the Dakotas only have three apiece, for example). On the whole, the Drumpf safe seats are largely only giving him single figures of electors. The big exception is of course Texas (38).

By Contrast, Clinton's safe seats are generally larger. California has a whopping 55, Washington 12, Illinois 20, New York 29, Maryland 10, New Jersey 14... Again, not all of the Democratic states are large of course (Vermont has 3 votes) but you get the idea.

I can think of at least 3 biases in the system:

• As you say, the small states have a disproportionately high number of electors. That tends to favour the Republicans.
• On the other hand, having your support in larger states favours the Democrats in a different way: Imagine you have 55% support in a state that returns - say - 30 electors. You get all the electors. But imagine if that state were broken into smaller states that between them choose the 30 electors. Chances are that geographical variations in your support would mean you now wouldn't get all 30 electors - your opponent would get a few of them.
• Finally, the system penalizes whichever party's vote is more concentrated (because that party wastes votes by building up high majorities that don't secure any more delegates than would a smaller majority). It think that effect probably favours the Democrats slightly.

It's fortuitous that all those biases happen to have cancelled each other out in most US presidential elections (2000 being the obvious exception). (Actually it's not entirely chance: The first two biases in my list mathematically must cancel each other to some extent, since one favours smaller states and the other favours larger states).

 

[Busaholic]

I'll leave you with the FiveThirtyEight forecast with the likelihoods for our differing opinions (10.5% Clinton gets the popular vote but loses; 0.5% for the converse.)

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

The problem with your analysis is that whilst Clinton needs fewer swing states, her safe seats are so overwhelmingly huge (California, New York etc.) and Trump's so numerous and tiny (all the small mid-west states, with the only notable exception being Texas) that it more than cancels out any discrepancies between the swing states.

There is apparently a distinct possibility that Florida, one of the first states to close their vote, may be one of the last to declare. Deja vu 2000, hanging chads, and all else hanging too; just so long as the Republican candidate doesn't squeeze through this time.:-x

 

[Domh245]

I can think of at least 3 biases in the system:

• As you say, the small states have a disproportionately high number of electors. That tends to favour the Republicans.
• On the other hand, having your support in larger states favours the Democrats in a different way: Imagine you have 55% support in a state that returns - say - 30 electors. You get all the electors. But imagine if that state were broken into smaller states that between them choose the 30 electors. Chances are that geographical variations in your support would mean you now wouldn't get all 30 electors - your opponent would get a few of them.
• Finally, the system penalizes whichever party's vote is more concentrated (because that party wastes votes by building up high majorities that don't secure any more delegates than would a smaller majority). It think that effect probably favours the Democrats slightly.

It's fortuitous that all those biases happen to have cancelled each other out in most US presidential elections (2000 being the obvious exception). (Actually it's not entirely chance: The first two biases in my list mathematically must cancel each other to some extent, since one favours smaller states and the other favours larger states).

CGPGrey has a fairly good video explaining some of the flaws with the electoral college, noting that it is possible to become president with just 22% of the popular vote.

(Related videos include how the electoral college works and what happens in the unlikely event of a tie

 

[Kite159]

Which are the two states which don't have an "First past the post" style system rather the electors are based on the vote split?

The system will probably be fairer if all the states used that style system, so in a close state where candidate 1 wins with 51% of the vote (and candidate 2 getting 49%, ignoring any other candidates) instead all the electors going towards Candidate 1, they are split between the two candidates.

 

[cf111]

Which are the two states which don't have an "First past the post" style system rather the electors are based on the vote split?

The system will probably be fairer if all the states used that style system, so in a close state where candidate 1 wins with 51% of the vote (and candidate 2 getting 49%, ignoring any other candidates) instead all the electors going towards Candidate 1, they are split between the two candidates.

Maine and Nebraska.

I honestly think I'd have spoiled my ballot if I were an American, the thought of voting for either of them makes my skin crawl.

 

[125Forever]

Two of the worst ever candidates as nominees for POTUS.

I can see an assassination coming.

 

[me123]

Which are the two states which don't have an "First past the post" style system rather the electors are based on the vote split?

The system will probably be fairer if all the states used that style system, so in a close state where candidate 1 wins with 51% of the vote (and candidate 2 getting 49%, ignoring any other candidates) instead all the electors going towards Candidate 1, they are split between the two candidates.

Maine and Nebraska don't use PR, though. Two votes are given to the winner of the state as a whole. Each congressional district then votes separately using a FPTP system. So, in Maine, the winner of the state gets 2 votes, and the winner in each congressional district gets a further one vote.

It is marginally better than the system elsewhere, but not as good aa PR system. A system with a 51:49 split could still award all its votes to one candidate if the split was consistent across the state. However, in larger states like Texas with a mix of opinion, it does mean that the minority party can still pick up a handful of seats in areas where it may have support (for example, Austin in Texas is surprisingly liberal).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I honestly think I'd have spoiled my ballot if I were an American, the thought of voting for either of them makes my skin crawl.

I'd have been tempted. But the prospect of a Drumpf presidency is so bad that Clinton suddenly looks wonderful by comparison.

Let's not forget that Drumpf has called Mexicans rapists, war heroes cowards, has mocked disabled people, has objectified women, has admitted that he fancies his own daughter, has been alleged to have sexually assaulted a dozen women and his defence was "they're not pretty enough", has threatened his opponent with imprisonment and murder, and is proud that he pays $0 in taxes - spending all of his time complaining about the country knowing that he's doing as little as possible to help. This is the vastly abbreviated version of Drumpf's sins. The man is truly a terrible candidate, and as much as it would loathe me to do so I'd not only vote for Clinton but actively campaign for her in order to keep this megalomaniac away from the nuclear codes.

But in case you're thinking that there isn't another choice, there actually is. Meet Gary Johnson.

[youtube]fOT_BoGpCn4[/youtube]

He almost makes Drumpf look qualified.

 

[cjp]

Two of the worst ever candidates as nominees for POTUS.

I can see an assassination coming.

Not one but two please

 

[yorkie]

How did they ever get to this world changing event and having to choose between Trump or Clinton?

See this video: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-us-2016-37802358

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have historically low favourability ratings - so how did they rise to the tops of their parties?
David Botti reports.

In short, it's because of the way their system works, who is involved in choosing the candidates, and the fact that the two sides are increasingly polarised.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Terrifying - They could choose a man who seems to be controlled by his hair and is such a risk that his own campaign took his twitter account off him, who hasn't told the truth since day 1, has an enviable record of business failure, a man who has changed his political standpoint like the weather, has views that make neanderthals look intelligent, has an interesting take on charity, has been coy with releasing his tax returns, has an interesting relationship with Putin, would struggle to find France on a map and whose ideas on world affairs is to shout USA!

Or a woman who has been secretary of state, has experience of politics and world affairs,appears respected on the world stage and whose only issue seems to have been to send some emails.

i know who i would choose!

Absolutely!

 

[Busaholic]

Dubya and wife Laura have broken their silence and announced they didn't vote for either presidential candidate.