POTUS Election 2016- a Fresh Start

[kyphysics]

I got to admit, this is kinda cute.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/benjami...ted-every-presidential-election-for-48-years/

Supposed this elementary school has predicted every POTUS election correctly for 48 years. Anyone care to see who they picked?

 

[OmCheeto]

I got to admit, this is kinda cute.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/benjami...ted-every-presidential-election-for-48-years/

Supposed this elementary school has predicted every POTUS election correctly for 48 years. Anyone care to see who they picked?

That actually might be the best place to do a poll, as kids for the most part are probably just echoing what their parents are hollering about.

One of our local schools had their kids hold a mock election, and results are very much in line with what I expect the actual local vote to look like:

Candidate      : count  percent
Hillary Clinton:  665    89.3%
Jill Stein     :   36     4.8%
Donald Trump   :   27     3.6%
Gary Johnson   :   17     2.3%

[ref] [edit: After watching the video for a third time, I think the kids are definitely echoing what their parents think.]

Previous 2 presidential elections:
Obama 2008 76.69% [ref]
Obama 2012 75.37% [ref]

We're kind of a bunch of bleeding heart liberal hippies out here.

 

[russ_watters]

In my opinion, I foresee civil unrest or violence, regardless of who gets the popular vote next Tuesday.

I agree.

I disagree.

If HRC does win, she is likely to have a very difficult four years, assuming she is not removed from office.

On that, I agree. Small victories.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Supposed this elementary school has predicted every POTUS election correctly for 48 years.

And given of order 100,000 elementary schools and 10 non-landslide elections, what are the chances of that?

 

[OmCheeto]

And given of order 100,000 elementary schools and 10 non-landslide elections, what are the chances of that?

And should we throw out the "48 years" number, since Gore won the popular vote, back in 2000?

Popular vote:

Bush: 50,456,002 (loser!)
Gore: 50,999,897 (winner!)​

[ref]​

ps. Back in 2003, I made the mistake of arguing with a Libertarian. About the only thing he agreed with, was that the electoral college should be eliminated. Everything else I said, was "WRONG!"
Fortunately, he and I are no longer friends, nor even acquaintances, as he moved to Florida about 10 years ago, and I would probably not enjoy listening to his excuses, as to why everything else I predicted came true, even though I was wrong.

It's fun to go back and read his stuff;

"The only thing in all of this uninformed and unthought out mess that I can agree with is the end of the electoral college. That time has come.

If these are truly your thoughts on "best and worse" case scenarios, there is no future and we might as well go back to loin clothes, the quest for fire, and the short brutal life of hunters and gatherers."​

I think at the time, I was promoting solar power. I'm guessing now that he didn't like the idea.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

ps. Back in 2003, I made the mistake of arguing with a Libertarian. About the only thing he agreed with, was that the electoral college should be eliminated.​

I don't know of another country that has an electoral college. However, with the winner take all system that 48 states have adopted, it does reduce the possibility of an election being thrown into the House of Representatives where each state gets one vote. The Constitution has no provision for a popular vote. It leaves the selection of electors to the states.​

 

[BillTre]

I think the electoral college resulted from a compromise between big state interests (choose by population) and small state interests (choose by each state is equal).
The House and Senate were such a compromise, based on making each of the two parts of congress organized one of these different approaches.
The electoral college compromised differently by adding the House and Senate numbers together.

 

[SW VandeCarr]

The electoral college compromised differently by adding the House and Senate numbers together.

Yes, but it is mostly if not strictly proportional. I could never find out why the founders decided to give each state one vote to decide an election where no one received an electoral majority. My guess is a combination of two possibilities. 1. Another compromise for the small states 2. If the electoral college failed based on proportional voting, why do it again in the House?

 

[BillTre]

By giving each state a single vote, it will be going with the each state is equal approach (similar to the Senate).
I had originally assumed that it would have gone by votes of Representatives, which would have rewarded states with the greater population and would have been a better approximation of the popular vote.

 

[OmCheeto]

Weren't there only 13 original states, each with only about 50 people in each one?
And no internet!
From my recollection, the electoral college made sense back then, given the conditions.
But now?
I think we should vote on Facebook, with "likes".

 

[Vanadium 50]

We could continue to guess...or we could read what the Founders wrote. (Like many things, it's in the Federalist Papers).

The expectation was that elections would involve a small number - perhaps 4 to 6 - candidates with regional support, and most elections would be settled in the House. The Electoral College was intended as a check on the House: if there were overwhelming support for one candidate, the House could not replace him with another. I don't think they expected this to happen twice out of 57.

 

[jim hardy]

I think we should vote on Facebook, with "likes".

I like your humor.

I'd rather line up the candidates and let Punxsutawney Phil pick one.

Seems we keep making the same mistakes over and over anyway...

old jim

 

[NTL2009]

RE: FBI FBI Director Comey -

... I think he's muddied his name enough that he may have done enough harm to himself with regards to future positions, ...

Muddied his name? Well, his name was just fine for the Democrats in July, when despite the findings of the investigation, he said he did not recommend that charges be brought against HRC (because there was not "clear evidence of intent"). Some of the comments regarding Comey's 'name':

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/hilary-clinton-fbi-democrats-230473

Elijah Cummings, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, in July:
"I don't know whether your family's watching this, but I hope that they are as proud of you as I am, because you are the epitome of what a public servant is all about. Sacrificing over and over and over again, trying to do the right thing, sometimes coming under ridicule, but again still doing the right thing,"

Feinstein (Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,) praised the director for coming to the "proper" conclusion.

And on OCT 31:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/31/white-house-calls-fbi-director-comey-man-integrity/

The White House broke with Democrats on Monday, saying FBI Director James B. Comey was “a man of integrity”

Seems like his name was only 'muddied' in some people's eyes, based on whether his position helped or hurt them?

 

[Evo]

RE: FBI FBI Director Comey -

Muddied his name? Well, his name was just fine for the Democrats in July, when despite the findings of the investigation, he said he did not recommend that charges be brought against HRC (because there was not "clear evidence of intent"). Some of the comments regarding Comey's 'name':

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/hilary-clinton-fbi-democrats-230473
And on OCT 31:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/31/white-house-calls-fbi-director-comey-man-integrity/
Seems like his name was only 'muddied' in some people's eyes, based on whether his position helped or hurt them?

If you have followed this both Republicans And Democrats have spoken out against him. Sources have been previously posted.

Here is a good video about it if you missed it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wr...re-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

 

[StevieTNZ]

I suspect we'll see a lot more of these news articles before and on Tuesday:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americ...donald-trump-rushed-off-stage-at-nevada-rally

Donald Trump has been rushed off stage by Secret Service agents during a campaign speech in Nevada, with one unconfirmed report suggesting a person in the audience had reported seeing a person with a gun.

Whether there was a gun or not, we're yet to learn.

 

[mathwonk]

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-...ays-no-gun-involved-in-trump-rally-commotion/

 

[StevieTNZ]

http://www.seattletimes.com/nation-...ays-no-gun-involved-in-trump-rally-commotion/

Oh good. But the secret service must take every threat seriously, which warranted their actions.

 

[Evo]

I am surprised that this has been such a non-violent (in action) election based on past history.

 

[Evo]

Just a head's up, due to the emotional nature of this election, it has been decided that this thread and any other thread related to the election old or new will be closed immediately after the winner is announced on election day. We can all use a breather.

 

[m k]

any other thread related to the election old or new will be closed immediately after the winner is announced

What is related, hooliganism, federal police involvements?

 

[gleem]

Just in FBI Director Comey will not recommend charges so we can all rest easy.

 

[Evo]

Just in FBI Director Comey will not recommend charges so we can all rest easy.

Nice, after all of the damage he's done. That's why you keep your yap shut until AFTER you see what's on the laptop, or maybe until you even have a warrant?

 

[NTL2009]

Just a head's up, due to the emotional nature of this election, it has been decided that this thread and any other thread related to the election old or new will be closed immediately after the winner is announced on election day. We can all use a breather.

Good idea. No need for any fist pumps or 'spiking the ball' afterwards from either side. Though I fear that we may be facing multiple States with Florida 2000 battles :( I think it may be very close in a few swing States. We will see.

If you have followed this both Republicans And Democrats have spoken out against him. Sources have been previously posted.

Here is a good video about it if you missed it.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-wr...re-fbi-had-reviewed-new-emails-220219586.html

So you found a 'Republican' (I put it quotes as he said in the video he is voting for Hillary) who agrees with the Democrats on Comey's decision to not recommend any charges. I don't think that counters the point that I made - that a number of high profile Democrats acted as if Comey was the Greatest Man on Earth when they liked what he said, and then turned on him when they didn't like what he said. So the 'muddying' of his name was a very fleeting thing, depending on one's view.

As far as reopening the investigation, I feel that Comey was damned if I do, damned if I don't on the release.

But what were any of Huma's govt emails doing on that computer? Sounds like more extreme carelessness to me.

I would think that what they did find must have already been reviewed, nothing new? Otherwise, I don't see how they could have come to any conclusion on any new info so quickly?

 

[Evo]

But what were any of Huma's govt emails doing on that computer? Sounds like more extreme carelessness to me.

I would think that what they did find must have already been reviewed, nothing new? Otherwise, I don't see how they could have come to any conclusion on any new info so quickly?

Huma said that she forwarded the e-mails to that computer to work on them, something about the computer at work not working right and Clinton was not aware. That's what I read. I don't know what news you read.

 

[Evo]

So you found a 'Republican' (I put it quotes as he said in the video he is voting for Hillary) who agrees with the Democrats on Comey's decision to not recommend any charges. I don't think that counters the point that I made - that a number of high profile Democrats acted as if Comey was the Greatest Man on Earth when they liked what he said, and then turned on him when they didn't like what he said. So the 'muddying' of his name was a very fleeting thing, depending on one's view.

You do read the news? Maybe you don't. Not that it matters now.

FBI Director James Comey’s Republican critics are growing by the hour

On Monday, one of the most conservative members of Congress criticized Comey's timing. Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) chairs the hard-line conservative House Freedom Caucus and has been agitating for Clinton to be investigated for perjury related to her use of a private email server.

But he told told Fox News Radio: "I think this was probably not the right thing for Comey to do — the protocol here — to come out this close to an election, but this whole case has been mishandled, and now it is what it is."

Jordan was the first sitting GOP member of Congress to publicly criticize Comey, a Republican appointed by President Obama. But within minutes, others joined him.

Here are 10 more Republicans defending Clinton from the FBI:

1. Sen. Chuck Grassley: The Iowa senator and chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee wrote to Comey on Monday demanding more details — in writing, by Friday — about the investigation, saying the trickle of information he shared Friday "did not go far enough" and was unfair to Clinton, Congress and Americans.

continued...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...g-hillary-clinton-from-fbi-chief-james-comey/

 

[NTL2009]

Huma said that she forwarded the e-mails to that computer to work on them, something about the computer at work not working right and Clinton was not aware. That's what I read. I don't know what news you read.

Yes, but government emails should be on a secure system, not on her estranged husband's computer. Especially that estranged husband.

Nice, after all of the damage he's done. ...

The damage was done by Hillary - if she hadn't been "extremely careless" with sensitive government information, and if she hadn't made multiple bald-faced lies to the public about it (see the Comey/Gowdy testimony in July), there wouldn't be any 'damage'. That's like blaming the cop for your speeding.

 

[Evo]

Yes, but government emails should be on a secure system, not on her estranged husband's computer. Especially that estranged husband.

So, you want the FBI to go after Huma now? And that was before she knew about her husband, and they weren't estranged at the time.

 

[NTL2009]

So, you want the FBI to go after Huma now? And that was before she knew about her husband, and they weren't estranged at the time.

It might be the appropriate thing to do. People at every level should take these issues very seriously. As Comey said in his July statement:

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

I don't understand why some people want to make excuses for this behavior. It's serious.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...bi-investigation-security-clearance/86709410/

FBI Director James Comey said Tuesday he would not recommend criminal prosecution of former secretary of State Hillary Clinton for mishandling classified information. But he did suggest another remedy: the loss of her security clearance.

If she were anyone else, Comey said in a televised press statement, the facts uncovered in the FBI's investigation might cost Clinton her security clearance — if not her job.

'If she were anyone else'? It would seem to me that Hillary, as head of the Sate Dept, should have been held to a higher standard, not a lower one. I don't get it.

If someone doesn't like Trump, that's their right. But how can anyone write off these actions by HRC? For me, this plainly makes her unfit for the office.

 

[NTL2009]

It's because you do not realize how common it is. ...

Well, that's comforting! :(

You are correct, I've never been a gov't employee. Though I did spend my career at a large corp that also did a lot of gov't technical communications work. I knew people who worked in the 'secrets room', and they never talked about their work.

But, if it's so common, why isn't Comey going after all these people? Why haven't we heard of an avalanche of investigations? Why did he describe it as he did in my posts above ('any reasonable person', and 'if she were anyone else'...)?

You better BleachBit your computer, and hide behind a VPN. :) Maybe you need to buy one of these, a 'cloth or something':

http://www.bleachbit.org/cloth-or-something

Maybe these tales of these activities being common are exactly why so many are looking to replace the status quo (even if the alternative ain't so great). Let's face it, this election cycle was largely about frustration with the status quo. On the Democrat side, how in the heck could Bernie Sanders, a Senator from Vermont, who wasn't even a Democrat until just before he entered the primary race, that few nation-wide had heard of, become a threat to HRC? Such a threat that the HRC campaign had to rig the primary against Sanders (and Debbie Wasserman Schultz had to step down). And Donna Brazille felt she needed to 'help' HRC by providing some of the debate questions (the wiki-leaks emails have been verified by the encryption key).

And on the Republican side, weren't the top three all the least status-quo among them (except for maybe Carly Fiorina, my top choice)?

As distasteful as we may find DJT, I think that many of us find the status quo even more distasteful, and more dangerous (I'm especially concerned about the NYT allowing the HRC campaign to approve/edit their stories). As I said earlier, that reeks of a dictator/Pravda relationship.

Which ever way this election goes, I feel like maybe a sleeping giant has been awoken (awaken?). I think some people are upset and ready to do something about it. Look at these polls from Rasmussen:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ion_2016/most_still_say_clinton_broke_the_law

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ree_with_timing_of_fbi_s_clinton_announcement

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law
Voters overwhelmingly favor changes in Obamacare, with more voters than ever calling for its outright repeal.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...r_2016/voters_don_t_trust_media_fact_checking

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...t_candidates_setting_agenda_for_2016_election

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...say_media_obsessed_with_political_controversy

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...s_expect_reporters_to_help_clinton_over_trump
Very little of that is covered in the media. Seems like the media has largely ignored two important pollsters, Rasmussen and Investor's Business Daily, who each have the election at a tie, or DJT a point ahead. But my Google News feed is full of reports of HRC being 3-12 points ahead.

http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-presidential-election-poll/
http://www.investors.com/politics/ibd-tipp-tracking-poll-most-accurate-presidential-poll/

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...lections/election_2016/white_house_watch_nov4
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...ion_2016/most_still_say_clinton_broke_the_law

 

[Evo]

You better BleachBit your computer, and hide behind a VPN. :) Maybe you need to buy one of these, a 'cloth or something':

This was years ago and the computers no longer exist, but thanks for being concerned. The people involved weren't important and I didn't want to know even a scrubbed version of what was happening. But it's why I'm not surprised that people can be so lax. I think a lot of good will come from this though.

 

[Evo]

Gosh, I like Bill Weld.

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/bill-weld-clinton-received-raw-deal-802480707510

I don't suppose I can just vote for a VP? Because I don't like Johnson.

 

[Borg]

This was years ago and the computers no longer exist, but thanks for being concerned. The people involved weren't important and I didn't want to know even a scrubbed version of what was happening. But it's why I'm not surprised that people can be so lax. I think a lot of good will come from this though.

I doubt that much will change w.r.t. computer security because there are too many people who are completely clueless. I worked at a government agency in the 90's and we were constantly reminded that our computer usage was being tracked. And yet there were still plenty of people who just wouldn't get it. One month we were sent an email listing the top 100 sites that people were visiting. #100 on the list was categorized as porn even though visiting sites like that was an instant ticket out the door. Every single month, one or two people were shown the door because of that.

My current company regularly tests us by sending suspicious-looking emails to see if we'll click on the links. Do that and you're assigned extra security training. The stats on the number of people that click on the links is mind-numbing.

 

[cristo]

This was a year ago. Can't believe we're still talking about it!

 

[cristo]

Very little of that is covered in the media. Seems like the media has largely ignored two important pollsters, Rasmussen and Investor's Business Daily, who each have the election at a tie, or DJT a point ahead. But my Google News feed is full of reports of HRC being 3-12 points ahead.

FiveThirtyEight includes these polls.

 

[jtbell]

The first votes are in, from Dixville Notch, New Hampshire:

Clinton 4
Trump 2
Johnson 1
Mitt Romney 1 (write-in)

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/08/politics/dixville-notch-results-2016/