Lewk, here's a conservative telling you why all the media attention is on Trump:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pollster-...200157345.html
Lewk, here's a conservative telling you why all the media attention is on Trump:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/pollster-...200157345.html
Hope is the denial of reality
Rationale for supporting Trump in a nutshell (hint: there isn't any):
https://theringer.com/peter-thiel-do...abe#.4gsbsp4jv
Hope is the denial of reality
You are wrong; there is a very strong rationale. It is that the system does not deliver for too many people while pretending to be inclusive. Trump voters don't want to change the system from within, they want to bring it down.Originally Posted by Loki
Congratulations America
And now the gloves are off: https://twitter.com/AndreaChalupa/st...63468447236096
Hope is the denial of reality
Minus the part where your average Trump supporter actually makes above average income.
Hope is the denial of reality
The average person doesn't attribute his/her income to the system. Delivering also isn't only about money in your pocket. I make more than the average voter in The Netherlands, but some 10 years ago I was so disgusted with politics here, I voted for the only dead guy on the ballot.
Congratulations America
That's impossible in the UK. It isn't possible for the dead to be on a ballot paper here.
I doubt that, unless your entire election is postponed if someone died between printing ballots and the election day.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
In the US when someone drops out (including write ins who preemptively announce they don't want a position) or dies the ballots aren't changed. There are notices posted in every voting booth informing voters of the issue and that if you vote for the invalid option your vote will be ignored.
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
Are you sure that's the case? I think that since the electors actually place the votes for POTUS, they can place their votes for whoever they wish when the actual electoral votes are tallied (substantially AFTER election day) - presumably they would be encouraged to vote for whoever the party's committee had chosen as a replacement for the dead nominee.
Furthermore, I'm not sure a vote is 'ignored' even in direct elections (e.g. for a congressional seat) - I am not sure about this, but if someone dies before an election but their name is still on the ballot, the opposing party can still 'lose' the election to the dead candidate, although it just means that the seat goes into an immediate by-election afterwards, with a new candidate or candidates.
There was a lot of discussion a few weeks ago about how feasible it would be to replace Trump on the ticket, and most of the options went through the electoral college rather than the actual ballots seen by voters.
"When I meet God, I am going to ask him two questions: Why relativity? And why turbulence? I really believe he will have an answer for the first." - Werner Heisenberg (maybe)
I was largely referring to the majority of the elected positions we vote for that don't have party affiliations or VPs. Florida is currently using one of these notices to inform voters that a favored write in has announced that he has no intention of fulfilling his position if elected so votes for him will not be counted. This is one reason I used the term invalid instead of something more direct since the positions/candidates you're referring to wouldn't technically be invalid. I do see my wording and explaination could have been more thorough
"In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."
That's precisely what happens. Don't forget our candidates stand in one constituency only and the entire election for that constituency is postponed and rescheduled with new ballot papers if any of the candidates die. Only happened seven times in history but most recently in 2010 when a UKIP candidate died in a safe Tory seat: http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/8115...andidate_dies/
If the monarch dies the entire General Election gets postponed for a fortnight.
Surely one of the most British sentences on record.If the monarch dies the entire General Election gets postponed for a fortnight.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
LOL!
Coincidentally that's the second time I've read that in the last few days. The other time was for the sentence "Cook sensibly batted for a maiden in the final over before tea" which I imagine would be very weird if not gibberish to most Americans.
In Holland voting for a dead person does actually have an effect on the outcome of the elections, but as it was a so-called protest vote, I could care less at the time. The reason for the effect is that your vote is both for the party and the person. If the person you vote is dead, your vote still goes towards the party.
Congratulations America
Obama won by landslides. How did it make a difference?
Hope is the denial of reality
Are you saying millennials didn't contribute to his "landslide" win?
As did everyone else who voted for him. They certainly didn't represent the margin of victory.
Hope is the denial of reality
I have a distant memory of you predicting the '08 election in favor of McCain, mostly based on the notion that "young people don't vote in large enough numbers to matter as a voting bloc". That's right out of old poli-sci models that considered the "older" voter to be a more reliable voter. That "older" voter was also more likely to register as a (R) or (D), and vote straight ticket. The demographics are different, the electorate has changed, and voting tendancies aren't so easy to predict for the newest voters.
Older voters are more reliable, your own source said so.
Voter turnout is what actually matters. And just because Baby Boomers/seniors are the 'most reliable' voting group doesn't say anything about the *other* groups that can ultimately decide an election. In the '08 election many pundits and analysts (and the GOP itself) panned the youth vote, based on their previously low turnout rates, and they were wrong.
The same thing is true this time around: if millennials vote, they can outweigh the older voters. The US is winning the demographic game other countries are losing. We're fortunate to have millions of young people, and within that group are subgroups (like Latinos, Muslims, LGBT, etc.) that aren't represented in the older population. Many of them are new voters, so it's hard to ascribe the same 'reliability' we automatically give to boomers/seniors who have a long voting history.
What are you arguing about again?
Trump's latest campaign manager:
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
https://twitter.com/pewresearch/stat...14673846046720
Majority of Trumpistas don't think freedom of the press is important...
Hope is the denial of reality
Well technically the only thing needed for democracy is voting... therefore the press isn't critical to it. Now perhaps the press is needed for a *well functioning* democracy but that wasn't the poll question.
You can't properly vote without being informed, free press is important for that.Well technically the only thing needed for democracy is voting... therefore the press isn't critical to it. Now perhaps the press is needed for a *well functioning* democracy but that wasn't the poll question.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Again 'properly' vote. I'd wager than MOST voters aren't very informed about the issues and we have a free press today. Are we not a "functioning" Democracy?
I'm not arguing that a free press is important. I'm arguing that the poll is poorly worded. I'm arguing that people look at 'I dislike negative stories about my guy so I'm going to select the one that says they suck and we don't need them.'
It is a bit old school to define democracy in a way that mob rule is included.Well technically the only thing needed for democracy is voting... therefore the press isn't critical to it. Now perhaps the press is needed for a *well functioning* democracy but that wasn't the poll question.
Congratulations America
That depends entirely on your definition of democracy. I don't know about you, but I don't want to live in a Venezuela or Russia.
Hope is the denial of reality
Sure but Democracy has a definition, seems odd to change the definition and then expect people to use your definition when answering a poll.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
