DOOM, or The Official 2016 US Election Thread

[baboon2004]

the thing that was new for this election (to me, anyway) was all these predictor percentage sites: 538 stating clinton with a 71.6% (or whatever) chance of winning, the ny times gauging it at 89%, etc. they come off as so declarative, people started to get hung up on them and seemed to convince themselves that the election was one way when it was really quite another way. i know those percentages are based on an aggregate of polling data but it's different from just seeing poll results.

that's a good point - the poll aggregators suggest certainty in a way that bears no relation to reality. The NYT swingometer on election night was mesmerising - somehow in the course of a few hours we went from a 90% likelihood of a Democrat victory to the opposite.

It'll be interesting to see whether polls really are discredited on either side of the Atlantic in future. I doubt they will be, and I reckon next year most will make the same mistake of underestimating Le Pen because polling doesn't properly reflect the support for her ideology of hatred. Personally, I think I've learned my lesson, after failing to heed the lessons of the 2015 UK GE and Brexit and blithely assuming that 'of course Clinton will win, even if not by as much as some believe'.

 

[firefinga]

The ridiculous overconfidence that many people approached the election with is surely one issue. It was only days ago that we were hearing about how victory was impossible for Trump. Now it seems almost like his victory was never implausible and no one is surprised.

I think it was less a case of overconfidence than more a case of autosuggestion. In so far that many peeps (me not excluded) simply couldn't imagine such a grotesque candidate like Trump could become president of the USA (except for craner apparently).

another thing - this prez race showed how archaic the TV debates have become. They didn't seem to have any effect at all.

 

[luka]

not just tv debates, also leos much vaunted 'ground game' gotv stuff... even money proved inconsequential

 

[firefinga]

It'll be interesting to see whether polls really are discredited on either side of the Atlantic in future. I doubt they will be, and I reckon next year most will make the same mistake of underestimating Le Pen because polling doesn't properly reflect the support for her ideology of hatred. Personally, I think I've learned my lesson, after failing to heed the lessons of the 2015 UK GE and Brexit and blithely assuming that 'of course Clinton will win, even if not by as much as some believe'.

This has already been going on for a while in Europe - example Austria: there is the Freedom Party there - a textbook case of a populist right wing party and there is the Green party (in addition to the obvious environmental issues that party is emphasising minority rights etc. - the "liberal elite's gospel"). The first one is usuallydoing badly in the polls, the latter usually very good. On election day it's the other way round. Explanations are like following: polling interviews done over the phone, and many voters imagine "it's the good thing to vote for the humanity party" while in reality they favor the populists - thus many simply lie when asked who they'd vote for. In Austria, polls aren't being taken seriously anymore, yet still reported all the time. Reminds me of the predicitions of economical growth which are usually off but still getting circulated regardless.

 

[Leo]

not just tv debates, also leos much vaunted 'ground game' gotv stuff... even money proved inconsequential

yup. well, clinton did get a lot of people out but obviously not enough. turnout overall was down: trump's "winning" vote total is 5 million less than candidates in the last two presidential elections.

 

[droid]

Things are looking really bleak everywhere.

I think Im going to have to become politically active again.

 

[Mr. Tea]

yup. well, clinton did get a lot of people out but obviously not enough. turnout overall was down: trump's "winning" vote total is 5 million less than candidates in the last two presidential elections.

Not to mention the fact that he got fewer votes than Clinton and it's only because of the arcane electoral college system that he's "won" the election.

 

[firefinga]

I also got the impression Trump was the first candidate who really took advantage of social media and used these (especially twitter) to sideline whatever "classic" media.

Also, bc social media isn't social at all, it's mostly about self-presentation fueled by the urge and desire to get responses (at whatever costs) - this in absolute accordance with Trump's megalomaniac and narcissistic mindset (at least he appears to me like that)

 

[droid]

 

[droid]

WRT the popular vote estimates:

x“We probably have about 7 million votes left to count,” said David Wasserman, an editor at Cook Political Report who is tracking turnout. “A majority of them are on the coasts, in New York, California, and Washington. She should be able to win those votes, probably 2-1.” By mid-December, when the Electoral College officially casts its ballots, Wasserman estimates that Clinton could be ahead by 2 percentage points in the popular vote.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...-popular-vote-lead-will-grow-and-grow/507455/

 

[droid]

Could this galvanise a popular, pluralist anti-fascist movement? Encompassing, but not led by the left? Would you join a group and sit down with Anarchists, Unions, The SWP, New Labour Blairites, Lib Dems, or even soft Tories?

Is it possible?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Could this galvanise a popular, pluralist anti-fascist movement? Encompassing, but not led by the left? Would you join a group and sit down with Anarchists, Unions, The SWP, New Labour Blairites, Lib Dems, or even soft Tories?

Is it possible?

A nice idea, but get real. The notion of the SWP and the Corbyn end of Labour forming any kind of alliance with anyone with the slightest taint of Bl*ir about them, let alone Tories (or should that be the other way round?) is less plausible than PETA and Greenpeace teaming up with McDonald's.

Still, the SWP is so tiny and irrelevant these days (to say nothing of morally compromised) that I think it can safely be ignored from this sort of discussion, while I hope it's only a matter of time before the Labour Party's membership collectively realizes that the party is never going to come within a sniff of power as long as it has Corbyn in charge and instead selects someone who (fingers crossed) has solid left-wing credentials but also understands how to run a party and has something approaching a workable foreign policy. And has some way of convincing working-class voters that progressive taxation, workers' rights and an adequately funded social state are the answer, rather than nationalism and isolationism.

 

[droid]

You misunderstand me, Im not talking about a political party or alliance. Im talking about people like you.

 

[droid]

What would it take for you to become politically involved in a pluralist anti-fascist campaign?

 

[Mr. Tea]

You misunderstand me, Im not talking about a political party or alliance. Im talking about people like you.

Oh I see. Well I guess the answer is yes, I would - I was talking about whether they'd sit down and talk with each other.

Edit: sorry, misread the 'or' as an 'and' at the end of your sentence. Uh, I think the situation is now so grave that it's becoming necessary to make common cause with people about whom you disagree over merely important issues in order to stand some chance of making a difference together in terms of the earth-shatteringly vital issues - to whit, the near-universal rise or resurrection of nationalism, and catastrophic climate change.

 

[droid]

If you build it, they will come. Gary Lineker can be the spokesman.

 

[droid]

I guess my point is that threat is so real now we can all see what's coming. Furthermore, globalisation and 1% economics has been exposed (by the right) as dangerous and damaging to the very foundations of democratic liberalism. There is a great opportunity here for a grand coalition.

 

[Mr. Tea]

I guess my point is that threat is so real now we can all see what's coming. Furthermore, globalisation and 1% economics has been exposed (by the right) as dangerous and damaging to the very foundations of democratic liberalism. There is a great opportunity here for a grand coalition.

That's very true. I'm just skeptical of the ability of all the various movements, pressure groups and cultures to put aside their differences and concentrate on the big(gest) picture.

I mean, Churchill said he'd "sup with the Devil himself" (Stalin, of course) if it meant a way to defeat Hitler. Would you make common cause with people who think Churchill was basically a pretty great guy in order to thwart those who think Hitler was a pretty great guy?

 

[droid]

Yes, yes I would.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Yes, yes I would.

Glad to hear it!

(Was going to say "What about Lionel Shriver?", but I don't want to push it...)