Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: 2016 US Election
168 views
Skip to first unread message
alka...@hotmail.com
Nov 7, 2016, 11:25:32 AM11/7/16
to
Or referendum on the sanity of this nation, one might say.
Clinton remains the favorite but Trump still has a chance, depending on the turnout on both sides. The polls in the swing states have also varied wildly, adding an additional layer of uncertainty.
Great entertainment, except that the wrong result is a very disturbing prospect.
Clinton remains the favorite but Trump still has a chance, depending on the turnout on both sides. The polls in the swing states have also varied wildly, adding an additional layer of uncertainty.
Great entertainment, except that the wrong result is a very disturbing prospect.
MH
Nov 7, 2016, 11:43:40 AM11/7/16
to
As a Guardian weekly subscriber, I may be getting a biased picture.
There is certainly lots of drama - Washington State electors threatening
to be faithless, still a possibility of McMullin taking Utah, the whole
FBI fiasco (I don't know what to think about the timing of that).
With all the baggage Trump has, it is astonishing to me that he was not
attacked more vigourously during the republican primaries. With all the
baggage Hillary has, one could say the same about the Democrats. Was
there not a younger, more appealling candidate that could have run.
Hillary is 69; Trump, if elected will be the oldest President to enter
office (for a first term ? was Reagan older at the beginning of his
second term). I am 58, and I certainly don't have the energy to run a
small country, let alone a big one. And my mind is already starting to
go in small ways. (On top of that, I am smarter than both of them, but
would still not consider myself smart enough to run a country).
Another stiking thing is how much the US electoral map has changed over
the years. People talk about red and blue states as though that were
written in stone since time immemorial, but Texas was a blue state at
one point. California was red.
The polarization is also distressing. Was there really a huge
difference between Stevenson and Eisenhower in how they would have run
the country ? And at one time the Democratic party was home to more
than its fair share of racists and biggots.
We are in the course of a lengthy discussion here in Canada about
electoral reform, and lord knows, we need it. Talked to the minister at
one of her cross-country town halls just the other week. But compared
to you guys, our system is easy to understand, cheap, transparent, and
relatively sane.
Bruce D. Scott
Nov 7, 2016, 12:21:49 PM11/7/16
to
MH wrote:
> The polarization is also distressing. Was there really a huge
> difference between Stevenson and Eisenhower in how they would have run
> the country ? And at one time the Democratic party was home to more
> than its fair share of racists and biggots.
Back in the Dixiecrat days, before Nixon played his Southern strategy.
> The polarization is also distressing. Was there really a huge
> difference between Stevenson and Eisenhower in how they would have run
> the country ? And at one time the Democratic party was home to more
> than its fair share of racists and biggots.
The problem is, we haven't got over the Confederacy. We don't have a
conservative problem, we have a confederate problem.
The time to look back to is 1854.
Wel'll be closer to normal if we can re-do our own version of the
gerrymandering with districts the Reps did the lat two decades. But the
rebels won't go away even if "demographics" reduces them to less
relevance.
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
Sven Mischkies
Nov 7, 2016, 12:27:56 PM11/7/16
to
MH <MHno...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> I have been following this on sites like 538.com, and reading the news.
I am not sure that stats sites are very reliable when it comes to Trump.
> I have been following this on sites like 538.com, and reading the news.
Too new, too unpredictable, and their data is gettign worse every year.
> As a Guardian weekly subscriber, I may be getting a biased picture.
> With all the baggage Trump has, it is astonishing to me that he was not
> attacked more vigourously during the republican primaries. With all the
> baggage Hillary has, one could say the same about the Democrats. Was
> there not a younger, more appealling candidate that could have run.
time in important offices or close to them.
> Hillary is 69; Trump, if elected will be the oldest President to enter
> office (for a first term ? was Reagan older at the beginning of his
> second term).
time.
> I am 58, and I certainly don't have the energy to run a
> small country, let alone a big one. And my mind is already starting to
> go in small ways. (On top of that, I am smarter than both of them, but
> would still not consider myself smart enough to run a country).
Ciao,
SM
--
91st Minute in the relegation play off:
KSC 1 - 0 HSV. HSV must score or or gets relegated.
"I'll shoot" - Rafael van der Vaart to Marcelo Diaz
"Yeah! Tomorrow, my friend – tomorrow!" - Marcelo Diaz
Sven Mischkies
Nov 7, 2016, 12:29:27 PM11/7/16
to
Bruce D. Scott <b...@g01.itm.rzg.mpg.de> wrote:
> The problem is, we haven't got over the Confederacy. We don't have a
> conservative problem, we have a confederate problem.
Heh. It seems the US is really good at winning wars - and losing peaces.
> The problem is, we haven't got over the Confederacy. We don't have a
> conservative problem, we have a confederate problem.
PearsfromanElm
Nov 7, 2016, 2:14:22 PM11/7/16
to
On 8/11/2016 3:25 AM, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Or referendum on the sanity of this nation, one might say.
How ironic...
> Or referendum on the sanity of this nation, one might say.
> Clinton remains the favorite but Trump still has a chance, depending on the turnout on both sides. The polls in the swing states have also varied wildly, adding an additional layer of uncertainty.
>
> Great entertainment, except that the wrong result is a very disturbing prospect.
--
"In the frigid football at the end of the century, which detests defeat
and forbids all fun, that man was one of the few who proved that fantasy
can be efficient."
~Galeano on Maradona
MH
Nov 7, 2016, 3:38:33 PM11/7/16
to
On 2016-11-07 10:27 AM, Sven Mischkies wrote:
> MH <MHno...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
>> I have been following this on sites like 538.com, and reading the news.
>
>
> I am not sure that stats sites are very reliable when it comes to Trump.
> Too new, too unpredictable, and their data is gettign worse every year.
>
>
>> As a Guardian weekly subscriber, I may be getting a biased picture.
>
>
> Et tu? ;)
>
>
>> With all the baggage Trump has, it is astonishing to me that he was not
>> attacked more vigourously during the republican primaries. With all the
>> baggage Hillary has, one could say the same about the Democrats. Was
>> there not a younger, more appealling candidate that could have run.
>
>
> What baggage would that be? I am failing to see any apart from lots of
> time in important offices or close to them.
Well she certainly is experienced and qualified in many ways. But even
> MH <MHno...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
>> I have been following this on sites like 538.com, and reading the news.
>
>
> I am not sure that stats sites are very reliable when it comes to Trump.
> Too new, too unpredictable, and their data is gettign worse every year.
>
>
>> As a Guardian weekly subscriber, I may be getting a biased picture.
>
>
> Et tu? ;)
>
>
>> With all the baggage Trump has, it is astonishing to me that he was not
>> attacked more vigourously during the republican primaries. With all the
>> baggage Hillary has, one could say the same about the Democrats. Was
>> there not a younger, more appealling candidate that could have run.
>
>
> What baggage would that be? I am failing to see any apart from lots of
> time in important offices or close to them.
if there is not a lot of substance to all the various rumours and
scandals that have popped up around her and Bill, there has always been
evidence of a venality and sense of entitlement that I find disturbing.
>
>
>> Hillary is 69; Trump, if elected will be the oldest President to enter
>> office (for a first term ? was Reagan older at the beginning of his
>> second term).
>
>
> That arse was 2 weeks from his 70th bday when he took office the first
> time.
>
across to me as a phony, and a particularly hokey phony at that.
>
>
>> I am 58, and I certainly don't have the energy to run a
>> small country, let alone a big one. And my mind is already starting to
>> go in small ways. (On top of that, I am smarter than both of them, but
>> would still not consider myself smart enough to run a country).
>
>
> I think you may be underestimating HC.
>
>
> Ciao,
> SM
>
Futbolmetrix
Nov 7, 2016, 3:44:34 PM11/7/16
to
consciousness beat 538, Sam Wang, the NYT and the rest?
I already the spreadsheet set up if you are interested...
MH
Nov 7, 2016, 3:55:15 PM11/7/16
to
>
>
>
Futbolmetrix
Nov 7, 2016, 4:26:51 PM11/7/16
to
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BYlGt0OX02Wp2GX84_8MqkEZewjM1qYM27dNq2UNBKA/edit?usp=sharing
Anyone with the link can edit. Just add a column with your entries
(predicted probability that the contest is won by Clinton) in the last
available space. 1s and 0s allowed, let's stick to two decimal digits,
otherwise we humans will have an unfair advantage over those stupid bots.
The entries for the BOTs are the predicted probabilities as of Saturday
evening, around 7pm Boston time, taken from here:
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?rref=collection%2Fsectioncollection%2Fupshot&action=click&contentCollection=upshot®ion=rank&module=package&version=highlights&contentPlacement=2&pgtype=sectionfront
MH
Nov 7, 2016, 4:33:44 PM11/7/16
to
Futbolmetrix
Nov 7, 2016, 4:34:34 PM11/7/16
to
On 11/7/2016 11:43 AM, MH wrote:
>>
> I have been following this on sites like 538.com, and reading the news.
> As a Guardian weekly subscriber, I may be getting a biased picture.
>
> There is certainly lots of drama
It's been hard to concentrate on almost anything else. The fact that we
>>
> I have been following this on sites like 538.com, and reading the news.
> As a Guardian weekly subscriber, I may be getting a biased picture.
>
> There is certainly lots of drama
may be a few hanging chads in FL/strategically closed polling stations
in NC away from electing an incompetent and racist buffoon to be the
leader of the free world (sic!) should send shivers down everyone's spine.
Just in case, any openings at U Calgary?
MH
Nov 7, 2016, 5:15:48 PM11/7/16
to
Two in Economics
Assistant Professor, Econometrics, Department of Economics
Job ID: 11442
Location: Main Campus
Updated October 17, 2016
Position Description The Department of Economics in the Faculty of Arts
invites applications for an Assistant Professor in Econometrics. The
anticipated start date is July 1st, 2017.We are seeking...
Learn More
Assistant Professor, Microeconomics, Department of Economics
Job ID: 11440
Location: Main Campus
Updated October 17, 2016
Position Description The Department of Economics in the Faculty of Arts
invites applications for an Assistant Professor in Microeconomics. The
anticipated start date is July 1st, 2017.We are...
Learn More
>
>
MH
Nov 7, 2016, 5:16:20 PM11/7/16
to
On 2016-11-07 2:34 PM, Futbolmetrix wrote:
Assistant Professor, Behavioural/ Experimental Economics, Department of
Economics
Job ID: 11375
Location: Main Campus
Updated October 03, 2016
Position Description The Department of Economics in the Faculty of Arts
invites applications for an Assistant Professor in
Behavioural/Experimental Economics. The anticipated start date is July...
invites applications for an Assistant Professor in
Learn More
Jesper Lauridsen
Nov 7, 2016, 8:03:16 PM11/7/16
to
On 2016-11-07, Sven Mischkies <hs...@der-ball-ist-rund.net> wrote:
> MH <MHno...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>
>> With all the baggage Trump has, it is astonishing to me that he was not
>> attacked more vigourously during the republican primaries. With all the
>> baggage Hillary has, one could say the same about the Democrats. Was
>> there not a younger, more appealling candidate that could have run.
>
>
> What baggage would that be? I am failing to see any apart from lots of
> time in important offices or close to them.
Yeah, she hasn't done anything Big Sam wouldn't do.
>
>> With all the baggage Trump has, it is astonishing to me that he was not
>> attacked more vigourously during the republican primaries. With all the
>> baggage Hillary has, one could say the same about the Democrats. Was
>> there not a younger, more appealling candidate that could have run.
>
>
> What baggage would that be? I am failing to see any apart from lots of
> time in important offices or close to them.
Bruce D. Scott
Nov 7, 2016, 8:55:08 PM11/7/16
to
Sven Mischkies <hs...@der-ball-ist-rund.net> wrote:
> Heh. It seems the US is really good at winning wars - and losing peaces.
My parents' generation were skewed by WWII (of course the W Euros played
> Heh. It seems the US is really good at winning wars - and losing peaces.
along massively otherwise stuff like that doesn't work) and passed that
wisdom (actually a massive historical anomaly) to us, and then...
My generation got Vietnam...
After that it's "Mission Accomplished" right before everything falls
apart. Like Britain in Afghanistan 1839-1842
Bruce D. Scott
Nov 7, 2016, 8:59:55 PM11/7/16
to
MH <MHno...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> Here's another
> Assistant Professor, Behavioural/ Experimental Economics, Department of
[...]
> Here's another
> Assistant Professor, Behavioural/ Experimental Economics, Department of
Those are real gambles for someone older who already has a position...
Still, as I told the General Fusion guys, they are a bit close to the
United States.
Porfirio Diaz: Alas poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United
States
Futbolmetrix
Nov 7, 2016, 9:07:53 PM11/7/16
to
On 11/7/2016 4:33 PM, MH wrote:
>>
>> There you go:
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BYlGt0OX02Wp2GX84_8MqkEZewjM1qYM27dNq2UNBKA/edit?usp=sharing
Entries so far:
>>
>> There you go:
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1BYlGt0OX02Wp2GX84_8MqkEZewjM1qYM27dNq2UNBKA/edit?usp=sharing
Upshot NYT
FiveThirtyEight
HuffPost
PredictWise
Princeton Election Consortium
Futbolmetrix
MH
JG
Nov 7, 2016, 9:13:58 PM11/7/16
to
Werner Pichler
Nov 8, 2016, 2:16:42 AM11/8/16
to
On Monday, 7 November 2016 21:44:34 UTC+1, Futbolmetrix wrote:
Normally I'd be game but that feels too much like tempting fate.
Ciao,
Werner
Ciao,
Werner
HD(noSpam)Beers@gmail.com
Nov 8, 2016, 6:24:21 AM11/8/16
to
It seems to me that the people who underestimated Reagan all those years, are the ones who never listened to "The Speech" (Oct. 27, 1964).
Futbolmetrix
Nov 8, 2016, 6:57:27 AM11/8/16
to
On 11/7/2016 9:13 PM, JG wrote:
>>
>> Entries so far:
>>
>> Upshot NYT
>> FiveThirtyEight
>> HuffPost
>> PredictWise
>> Princeton Election Consortium
>> Futbolmetrix
>> MH
>
> I entered! The big question is how bullish we should be for Hillary in Nevada and Florida where the polls
> are 50/50 but the early voting numbers are apparently very favorable for her.
This will be a nice test of whether the ground game/get out the vote
>>
>> Entries so far:
>>
>> Upshot NYT
>> FiveThirtyEight
>> HuffPost
>> PredictWise
>> Princeton Election Consortium
>> Futbolmetrix
>> MH
>
> I entered! The big question is how bullish we should be for Hillary in Nevada and Florida where the polls
> are 50/50 but the early voting numbers are apparently very favorable for her.
(where apparently Hillary has a huge advantage) really matters.
Entries so far:
Upshot NYT
FiveThirtyEight
HuffPost
PredictWise
Princeton Election Consortium
Futbolmetrix
MH
Jesus
You can enter until 7pm EST tonight, when (I believe), the first exit
polls will be announced.
Sven Mischkies
Nov 8, 2016, 8:04:54 AM11/8/16
to
politician without taking bribes?
Sven Mischkies
Nov 8, 2016, 8:20:20 AM11/8/16
to
Futbolmetrix <futbol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You can enter until 7pm EST tonight, when (I believe), the first exit
> polls will be announced.
First time I entered a SophCon this decade, I think. Maybe second. I
> You can enter until 7pm EST tonight, when (I believe), the first exit
> polls will be announced.
think you are all too optimistic, there are too many problems with
polling these days, and there has never been a candidate just like
Trump.
Jesus Petry
Nov 8, 2016, 8:37:14 AM11/8/16
to
Most pessimistic: Sven (252.7! - the only one that has Trump winning)
Tchau!
Jesus Petry
Chagney Hunt
Nov 8, 2016, 8:39:44 AM11/8/16
to
On 11/8/2016 8:20 AM, Sven Mischkies wrote:
> Futbolmetrix <futbol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> You can enter until 7pm EST tonight, when (I believe), the first exit
>> polls will be announced.
>
>
> First time I entered a SophCon this decade, I think. Maybe second. I
> think you are all too optimistic, there are too many problems with
> polling these days, and there has never been a candidate just like
> Trump.
Anyone saw my entry (I didn't login, so ....)
> Futbolmetrix <futbol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> You can enter until 7pm EST tonight, when (I believe), the first exit
>> polls will be announced.
>
>
> First time I entered a SophCon this decade, I think. Maybe second. I
> think you are all too optimistic, there are too many problems with
> polling these days, and there has never been a candidate just like
> Trump.
Anyway, just to make this "local" election a bit more relevant: Eastern
and Western Wisconsin, though similarly rural, tend to vote in opposite
direction. Guess what immigration pattern that correlates to?
Jesus Petry
Nov 8, 2016, 8:40:10 AM11/8/16
to
Average (bots): 315.04
Tchau!
Jesus Petry
Jesus Petry
Nov 8, 2016, 8:44:39 AM11/8/16
to
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 11:39:44 AM UTC-2, Chagney Hunt wrote:
> On 11/8/2016 8:20 AM, Sven Mischkies wrote:
> > Futbolmetrix <futbol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> You can enter until 7pm EST tonight, when (I believe), the first exit
> >> polls will be announced.
> >
> >
> > First time I entered a SophCon this decade, I think. Maybe second. I
> > think you are all too optimistic, there are too many problems with
> > polling these days, and there has never been a candidate just like
> > Trump.
>
> Anyone saw my entry (I didn't login, so ....)
You're there with your slightly optimistic (for a human) prediction.
> On 11/8/2016 8:20 AM, Sven Mischkies wrote:
> > Futbolmetrix <futbol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> You can enter until 7pm EST tonight, when (I believe), the first exit
> >> polls will be announced.
> >
> >
> > First time I entered a SophCon this decade, I think. Maybe second. I
> > think you are all too optimistic, there are too many problems with
> > polling these days, and there has never been a candidate just like
> > Trump.
>
> Anyone saw my entry (I didn't login, so ....)
Tchau!
Jesus Petry
Chagney Hunt
Nov 8, 2016, 8:47:07 AM11/8/16
to
Chagney Hunt
Nov 8, 2016, 9:01:29 AM11/8/16
to
On 11/8/2016 8:44 AM, Jesus Petry wrote:
> You're there with your slightly optimistic (for a human) prediction.
I have to balance out Sven.
> You're there with your slightly optimistic (for a human) prediction.
Jesus Petry
Nov 8, 2016, 10:00:30 AM11/8/16
to
On Tuesday, November 8, 2016 at 11:37:14 AM UTC-2, Jesus Petry wrote:
I hope it's OK.
Tchau!
Jesus Petry
MH
Nov 8, 2016, 11:25:06 AM11/8/16
to
On 2016-11-07 6:59 PM, Bruce D. Scott wrote:
> MH <MHno...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>> Here's another
>> Assistant Professor, Behavioural/ Experimental Economics, Department of
>
> [...]
>
> Those are real gambles for someone older who already has a position...
Not really, if you can convince them to hire at a higher level than
> MH <MHno...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>> Here's another
>> Assistant Professor, Behavioural/ Experimental Economics, Department of
>
> [...]
>
> Those are real gambles for someone older who already has a position...
Assistant Prof, which is sometimes fully negotiable (sometimes not).
You have to remember this is Canada. Tenure is not a big deal, nor is
promotion. Everyone who has a pulse and a grant and publishes (and
doesn't screw up with teaching or do a Donald Trump on the Dean's
daughter - (or husband, in our case !)) gets tenure and will get
promoted to full prof, at least here in Calgary (and things are not much
different elsewhere except maybe U of T, McGill, and UBC, who all give
themselves airs (only partially justifiably).
Plus our grant scene is considerably more humane than that in the US,
although CIHR is getting a lot like NIH.
>
> Still, as I told the General Fusion guys, they are a bit close to the
> United States.
>
> Porfirio Diaz: Alas poor Mexico, so far from God, so close to the United
> States
>
MH
Nov 8, 2016, 11:59:24 AM11/8/16
to
On 2016-11-08 4:24 AM, HD(noSpam)Be...@gmail.com wrote:
> It seems to me that the people who underestimated Reagan all those years, are the ones who never listened to "The Speech" (Oct. 27, 1964).
>
Thanks for pointing that out Dwight. You are right, I never listened to
> It seems to me that the people who underestimated Reagan all those years, are the ones who never listened to "The Speech" (Oct. 27, 1964).
>
that speech. Why would I have, as a six year old Scot who had just been
transplanted to Winnipeg? It is indeed an impressive oration, and
compares very favourably to what passes for speeches these days.
However, the words were to a large extent proven to be empty. Reagan
actually RAISED taxes in his first term as governor of California. Also
increased taxes several times and in several ways as President, and ran
huge deficits. The national debt tripled under his watch.
Sven Mischkies
Nov 8, 2016, 12:14:29 PM11/8/16
to
Bundesliga contest to challenge the Danish dominance.
Sven Mischkies
Nov 8, 2016, 12:14:29 PM11/8/16
to
Jesus Petry <jesus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Most optimistic entry so far: HuffPost (334.55 Electoral votes for Clinton)
> Most pessimistic: Sven (252.7! - the only one that has Trump winning)
I like how it is a total nobrainer here what is optimistic and what is
> Most optimistic entry so far: HuffPost (334.55 Electoral votes for Clinton)
> Most pessimistic: Sven (252.7! - the only one that has Trump winning)
pessimistic. ;)
The Economist has a quick piece about how people regard the choice
elsewhere - in all countries they checked Clinton wins, usually by huge
margins, even our European continental rightwing nutters have her in
front!
The only exception? The little Englanders from UKIP.
HD(noSpam)Beers@gmail.com
Nov 8, 2016, 1:01:43 PM11/8/16
to
As a practical politician I believe he did the best he could do with the legislators he had to deal with.
But, the point I was trying to make, was that there was very little that was phony about him. And, that speech was a brilliant analysis of the issues which divide this country to this day.
But, the point I was trying to make, was that there was very little that was phony about him. And, that speech was a brilliant analysis of the issues which divide this country to this day.
Chagney Hunt
Nov 8, 2016, 1:59:42 PM11/8/16
to
On 11/8/2016 12:14 PM, Sven Mischkies wrote:
> Chagney Hunt <neop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/8/2016 8:44 AM, Jesus Petry wrote:
>>
>>> You're there with your slightly optimistic (for a human) prediction.
>>
>> I have to balance out Sven.
>
>
> How did you know I would join?? With your powers you shoudl do the
I didn't, I saw JP's post :)
> Chagney Hunt <neop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/8/2016 8:44 AM, Jesus Petry wrote:
>>
>>> You're there with your slightly optimistic (for a human) prediction.
>>
>> I have to balance out Sven.
>
>
> How did you know I would join?? With your powers you shoudl do the
> Bundesliga contest to challenge the Danish dominance.
reign.
Sven Mischkies
Nov 8, 2016, 5:34:24 PM11/8/16
to
HASM
Nov 8, 2016, 6:35:41 PM11/8/16
to
hs...@der-ball-ist-rund.net (Sven Mischkies) writes:
> elsewhere - in all countries they checked Clinton wins, usually by
> huge margins, ... The only exception? The little Englanders from
> elsewhere - in all countries they checked Clinton wins, usually by
> UKIP.
I heard that Russians also favored Trump, but that may just be the
official position.
-- HASM
Sven Mischkies
Nov 8, 2016, 7:22:22 PM11/8/16
to
Even the Saudis would give HC a crushing victory! Not allowed to drive,
but running the country? Sure. ;)
Abubakr
Nov 8, 2016, 7:42:07 PM11/8/16
to
On Wednesday, 9 November 2016 10:35:41 UTC+11, HASM wrote:
> hs...@der-ball-ist-rund.net (Sven Mischkies) writes:
>
> > elsewhere - in all countries they checked Clinton wins, usually by
> > huge margins, ... The only exception? The little Englanders from
> > UKIP.
>
> I heard that Russians also favored Trump
I think this makes sense.
> hs...@der-ball-ist-rund.net (Sven Mischkies) writes:
>
> > elsewhere - in all countries they checked Clinton wins, usually by
> > huge margins, ... The only exception? The little Englanders from
> > UKIP.
>
> I heard that Russians also favored Trump
HASM
Nov 8, 2016, 8:09:28 PM11/8/16
to
hs...@der-ball-ist-rund.net (Sven Mischkies) writes:
>>> in all countries they checked Clinton wins, usually by
>>> huge margins, ... The only exception? The little Englanders from
>>> UKIP.
>> I heard that Russians also favored Trump,
> http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/11/daily-chart-4
>>> in all countries they checked Clinton wins, usually by
>>> huge margins, ... The only exception? The little Englanders from
>>> UKIP.
>> I heard that Russians also favored Trump,
No Russia in there.
>> but that may just be the official position.
-- HASM
Clément
Nov 8, 2016, 9:15:56 PM11/8/16
to
"Sven Mischkies" escreveu:
because it is the fashionable to do in their little cuckoo parallel
universe. Which is kind of hilarious, because Trump is objectively not the
best choice for them either.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
---
Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antivírus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
> Jesus Petry wrote:
>> Most optimistic entry so far: HuffPost (334.55 Electoral votes for
>> Clinton)
>> Most pessimistic: Sven (252.7! - the only one that has Trump winning)
>
> I like how it is a total nobrainer here what is optimistic and what is
> pessimistic. ;)
>
> The Economist has a quick piece about how people regard the choice
> elsewhere - in all countries they checked Clinton wins, usually by huge
> margins, even our European continental rightwing nutters have her in
> front!
Some Brazilian right wing nutcases have been vocal pro Trump, probably
>> Most optimistic entry so far: HuffPost (334.55 Electoral votes for
>> Clinton)
>> Most pessimistic: Sven (252.7! - the only one that has Trump winning)
>
> I like how it is a total nobrainer here what is optimistic and what is
> pessimistic. ;)
>
> The Economist has a quick piece about how people regard the choice
> elsewhere - in all countries they checked Clinton wins, usually by huge
> margins, even our European continental rightwing nutters have her in
> front!
because it is the fashionable to do in their little cuckoo parallel
universe. Which is kind of hilarious, because Trump is objectively not the
best choice for them either.
Abraço,
Luiz Mello
---
Este email foi escaneado pelo Avast antivírus.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Sven Mischkies
Nov 8, 2016, 9:26:49 PM11/8/16
to
off. Trump leading in VA, NC, FL, the latter with almost 2% with only
9% to go...
Futbolmetrix
Nov 8, 2016, 9:34:09 PM11/8/16
to
On 11/8/2016 9:26 PM, Sven Mischkies wrote:
> Chagney Hunt <neop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/8/2016 8:44 AM, Jesus Petry wrote:
>>
>>> You're there with your slightly optimistic (for a human) prediction.
>>
>> I have to balance out Sven.
>
>
> Well, it seems increasingly likely that mine might not be all that far
> off. Trump leading in VA, NC, FL, the latter with almost 2% with only
> 9% to go...
>
Yes, it's over, Trump has won this. He'll get MI to cross 270.
> Chagney Hunt <neop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/8/2016 8:44 AM, Jesus Petry wrote:
>>
>>> You're there with your slightly optimistic (for a human) prediction.
>>
>> I have to balance out Sven.
>
>
> Well, it seems increasingly likely that mine might not be all that far
> off. Trump leading in VA, NC, FL, the latter with almost 2% with only
> 9% to go...
>
Murat Bey
Nov 8, 2016, 11:24:30 PM11/8/16
to
David Rothschild will be selling potato peelers in Union Square tomorrow..
https://s11.postimg.org/vs9okihoj/predictwise.jpg
https://s11.postimg.org/vs9okihoj/predictwise.jpg
Murat Bey
Nov 8, 2016, 11:26:29 PM11/8/16
to
http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president
Murat Bey
Nov 9, 2016, 2:10:13 AM11/9/16
to
Game set match.
Murat Bey
Nov 9, 2016, 2:23:42 AM11/9/16
to
Jesus Petry
Nov 9, 2016, 5:22:10 AM11/9/16
to
My first reaction was, of course, shock. But then a guy that acted like a complete idiot the whole campaign goes to make his victory speech and actually sounds reasonable and nice! Let's hope this is the real Trump...
Tchau!
Jesus Petry
Tchau!
Jesus Petry
Futbolmetrix
Nov 9, 2016, 6:36:41 AM11/9/16
to
On 11/9/2016 5:22 AM, Jesus Petry wrote:
> My first reaction was, of course, shock. But then a guy that acted like a complete idiot the whole campaign goes to make
> his victory speech and actually sounds reasonable and nice! Let's hope this is the real Trump...
You can stay on script and follow what your advisers tell you to do for
> My first reaction was, of course, shock. But then a guy that acted like a complete idiot the whole campaign goes to make
> his victory speech and actually sounds reasonable and nice! Let's hope this is the real Trump...
one speech, but you need to do it every single day, for 4 years (8?
let's not even think about it) . His "real" person is what we all know
it is.
Now to the grim job of computing the SophCon results.
Bruce D. Scott
Nov 9, 2016, 8:35:01 AM11/9/16
to
"HD(noSpam)Be...@gmail.com" <HDB...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems to me that the people who underestimated Reagan all those
>years, are the ones who never listened to "The Speech" (Oct. 27, 1964).
That was before my time... all I knew then (1980) were his movies.
> It seems to me that the people who underestimated Reagan all those
>years, are the ones who never listened to "The Speech" (Oct. 27, 1964).
--
ciao,
Bruce
drift wave turbulence: http://www.rzg.mpg.de/~bds/
Enzo
Nov 9, 2016, 8:45:38 AM11/9/16
to
On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 9:55:32 PM UTC+5:30, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Or referendum on the sanity of this nation, one might say.
>
> Clinton remains the favorite but Trump still has a chance, depending on the turnout on both sides. The polls in the swing states have also varied wildly, adding an additional layer of uncertainty.
>
> Great entertainment, except that the wrong result is a very disturbing prospect.
Disturbing for you and your Muslim brethren, you motherfucker.
> Or referendum on the sanity of this nation, one might say.
>
> Clinton remains the favorite but Trump still has a chance, depending on the turnout on both sides. The polls in the swing states have also varied wildly, adding an additional layer of uncertainty.
>
> Great entertainment, except that the wrong result is a very disturbing prospect.
Disturbing for you and your Muslim brethren, you motherfucker.
Enzo
Nov 9, 2016, 8:55:32 AM11/9/16
to
On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 10:13:40 PM UTC+5:30, MH wrote:
> As a Guardian weekly subscriber, I may be getting a biased picture.
>
> There is certainly lots of drama - Washington State electors threatening
> to be faithless, still a possibility of McMullin taking Utah, the whole
> FBI fiasco (I don't know what to think about the timing of that).
>
> With all the baggage Trump has, it is astonishing to me that he was not
> attacked more vigourously during the republican primaries. With all the
> baggage Hillary has, one could say the same about the Democrats. Was
> there not a younger, more appealling candidate that could have run.
>
> Hillary is 69; Trump, if elected will be the oldest President to enter
> office (for a first term ? was Reagan older at the beginning of his
> second term). I am 58, and I certainly don't have the energy to run a
> small country, let alone a big one. And my mind is already starting to
> go in small ways. (On top of that, I am smarter than both of them, but
> would still not consider myself smart enough to run a country).
>
> Another stiking thing is how much the US electoral map has changed over
> the years. People talk about red and blue states as though that were
> written in stone since time immemorial, but Texas was a blue state at
> one point. California was red.
>
> The polarization is also distressing. Was there really a huge
> difference between Stevenson and Eisenhower in how they would have run
> the country ? And at one time the Democratic party was home to more
> than its fair share of racists and biggots.
>
> We are in the course of a lengthy discussion here in Canada about
> electoral reform, and lord knows, we need it. Talked to the minister at
> one of her cross-country town halls just the other week. But compared
> to you guys, our system is easy to understand, cheap, transparent, and
> relatively sane.
Fuck Canada and your 3rd class President.
It amazes me that anyone can be proud of Canada, a nation of whores.
> On 2016-11-07 9:25 AM, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Or referendum on the sanity of this nation, one might say.
> >
> > Clinton remains the favorite but Trump still has a chance, depending on the turnout on both sides. The polls in the swing states have also varied wildly, adding an additional layer of uncertainty.
> >
> > Great entertainment, except that the wrong result is a very disturbing prospect.
> >
> I have been following this on sites like 538.com, and reading the news.
> > Or referendum on the sanity of this nation, one might say.
> >
> > Clinton remains the favorite but Trump still has a chance, depending on the turnout on both sides. The polls in the swing states have also varied wildly, adding an additional layer of uncertainty.
> >
> > Great entertainment, except that the wrong result is a very disturbing prospect.
> >
> As a Guardian weekly subscriber, I may be getting a biased picture.
>
> There is certainly lots of drama - Washington State electors threatening
> to be faithless, still a possibility of McMullin taking Utah, the whole
> FBI fiasco (I don't know what to think about the timing of that).
>
> With all the baggage Trump has, it is astonishing to me that he was not
> attacked more vigourously during the republican primaries. With all the
> baggage Hillary has, one could say the same about the Democrats. Was
> there not a younger, more appealling candidate that could have run.
>
> Hillary is 69; Trump, if elected will be the oldest President to enter
> office (for a first term ? was Reagan older at the beginning of his
> second term). I am 58, and I certainly don't have the energy to run a
> small country, let alone a big one. And my mind is already starting to
> go in small ways. (On top of that, I am smarter than both of them, but
> would still not consider myself smart enough to run a country).
>
> Another stiking thing is how much the US electoral map has changed over
> the years. People talk about red and blue states as though that were
> written in stone since time immemorial, but Texas was a blue state at
> one point. California was red.
>
> The polarization is also distressing. Was there really a huge
> difference between Stevenson and Eisenhower in how they would have run
> the country ? And at one time the Democratic party was home to more
> than its fair share of racists and biggots.
>
> We are in the course of a lengthy discussion here in Canada about
> electoral reform, and lord knows, we need it. Talked to the minister at
> one of her cross-country town halls just the other week. But compared
> to you guys, our system is easy to understand, cheap, transparent, and
> relatively sane.
Fuck Canada and your 3rd class President.
It amazes me that anyone can be proud of Canada, a nation of whores.
Enzo
Nov 9, 2016, 8:59:15 AM11/9/16
to
On Monday, November 7, 2016 at 9:55:32 PM UTC+5:30, alka...@hotmail.com wrote:
> Or referendum on the sanity of this nation, one might say.
>
> Clinton remains the favorite but Trump still has a chance, depending on the turnout on both sides. The polls in the swing states have also varied wildly, adding an additional layer of uncertainty.
>
> Great entertainment, except that the wrong result is a very disturbing prospect.
Put the dick of your Pakistani father into your mothers arse.
> Or referendum on the sanity of this nation, one might say.
>
> Clinton remains the favorite but Trump still has a chance, depending on the turnout on both sides. The polls in the swing states have also varied wildly, adding an additional layer of uncertainty.
>
> Great entertainment, except that the wrong result is a very disturbing prospect.
Sven Mischkies
Nov 9, 2016, 9:42:09 AM11/9/16
to
The Doctor
Nov 9, 2016, 10:28:24 AM11/9/16
to
In article <2272859b-827b-4007...@googlegroups.com>,
Murat Bey <gerika...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Game set match.
It was obviuos.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Lest we forget 11 Nov
Murat Bey <gerika...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Game set match.
It was obviuos.
--
Member - Liberal International This is doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca Ici doctor@@nl2k.ab.ca
God,Queen and country!Never Satan President Republic!Beware AntiChrist rising!
http://www.fullyfollow.me/rootnl2k Look at Psalms 14 and 53 on Atheism
Lest we forget 11 Nov
The Doctor
Nov 9, 2016, 10:29:12 AM11/9/16
to
In article <09013f82-cd15-4d1f...@googlegroups.com>,
The Democrats committed political suicide
by putting in Hillary Clinton.
by putting in Hillary Clinton.
Chagney Hunt
Nov 9, 2016, 11:15:25 AM11/9/16
to
On 11/9/2016 6:36 AM, Futbolmetrix wrote:
> On 11/9/2016 5:22 AM, Jesus Petry wrote:
>> My first reaction was, of course, shock. But then a guy that acted
>> like a complete idiot the whole campaign goes to make
>> his victory speech and actually sounds reasonable and nice! Let's hope
>> this is the real Trump...
>
> You can stay on script and follow what your advisers tell you to do for
> one speech, but you need to do it every single day, for 4 years (8?
> let's not even think about it) . His "real" person is what we all know
> it is.
We're fucked.
> On 11/9/2016 5:22 AM, Jesus Petry wrote:
>> My first reaction was, of course, shock. But then a guy that acted
>> like a complete idiot the whole campaign goes to make
>> his victory speech and actually sounds reasonable and nice! Let's hope
>> this is the real Trump...
>
> You can stay on script and follow what your advisers tell you to do for
> one speech, but you need to do it every single day, for 4 years (8?
> let's not even think about it) . His "real" person is what we all know
> it is.
I am, as much as the next guy, curious how the people that promoted
magical thinking and conspiracies would actually govern. I just don't
want to be a (passive) part of it.
Murat Bey
Nov 9, 2016, 11:42:16 AM11/9/16
to
Sven Mischkies
Nov 9, 2016, 11:59:50 AM11/9/16
to
Chagney Hunt <neop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 11/8/2016 8:44 AM, Jesus Petry wrote:
>
> > You're there with your slightly optimistic (for a human) prediction.
>
> I have to balance out Sven.
And it turns out I was too optimistic, too. Ah, well. :D
> On 11/8/2016 8:44 AM, Jesus Petry wrote:
>
> > You're there with your slightly optimistic (for a human) prediction.
>
> I have to balance out Sven.
Futbolmetrix
Nov 9, 2016, 1:58:34 PM11/9/16
to
On 11/9/2016 9:42 AM, Sven Mischkies wrote:
> Futbolmetrix <futbol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/9/2016 5:22 AM, Jesus Petry wrote:
>
>> You can stay on script and follow what your advisers tell you to do for
>> one speech, but you need to do it every single day, for 4 years (8?
>> let's not even think about it) . His "real" person is what we all know
>> it is.
>>
>> Now to the grim job of computing the SophCon results.
>
>
> Slowpoke. ;)
>
Here are the results:
> Futbolmetrix <futbol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/9/2016 5:22 AM, Jesus Petry wrote:
>
>> You can stay on script and follow what your advisers tell you to do for
>> one speech, but you need to do it every single day, for 4 years (8?
>> let's not even think about it) . His "real" person is what we all know
>> it is.
>>
>> Now to the grim job of computing the SophCon results.
>
>
> Slowpoke. ;)
>
+----------------------------------+
| code name SCORE_log |
|----------------------------------|
26. | 13 SM -9.027831 |
106. | 11 JesusPetry -11.57379 |
154. | 2 _538_ -12.30768 |
177. | 8 MH -13.28672 |
227. | 6 AverageModels -14.69785 |
|----------------------------------|
316. | 9 JimG -15.38123 |
381. | 4 PredictWise -15.60699 |
420. | 1 NYT -15.6133 |
492. | 5 SamWang -15.88153 |
526. | 7 Futbolmetrix -17.12608 |
|----------------------------------|
582. | 14 Agnostic -38.81624 |
644. | 3 HuffPost -93.26025 |
710. | 12 7h@ch -226.3385 |
764. | 10 MuratBey -442.0963 |
828. | 15 Outcome2012 -589.4618 |
+----------------------------------+
I hope Cassandr...erm, Sven, enjoys his title!
PearsfromanElm
Nov 9, 2016, 3:09:55 PM11/9/16
to
On 10/11/2016 3:15 AM, Chagney Hunt wrote:
> On 11/9/2016 6:36 AM, Futbolmetrix wrote:
>> On 11/9/2016 5:22 AM, Jesus Petry wrote:
>>> My first reaction was, of course, shock. But then a guy that acted
>>> like a complete idiot the whole campaign goes to make
>>> his victory speech and actually sounds reasonable and nice! Let's hope
>>> this is the real Trump...
>>
>> You can stay on script and follow what your advisers tell you to do for
>> one speech, but you need to do it every single day, for 4 years (8?
>> let's not even think about it) . His "real" person is what we all know
>> it is.
>
> We're fucked.
Americans are probably fucked but the rest of the world?
> On 11/9/2016 6:36 AM, Futbolmetrix wrote:
>> On 11/9/2016 5:22 AM, Jesus Petry wrote:
>>> My first reaction was, of course, shock. But then a guy that acted
>>> like a complete idiot the whole campaign goes to make
>>> his victory speech and actually sounds reasonable and nice! Let's hope
>>> this is the real Trump...
>>
>> You can stay on script and follow what your advisers tell you to do for
>> one speech, but you need to do it every single day, for 4 years (8?
>> let's not even think about it) . His "real" person is what we all know
>> it is.
>
> We're fucked.
Meh, maybe not so much, except perhaps through the environment (which is
pretty fucked either way).
> I am, as much as the next guy, curious how the people that promoted
> magical thinking and conspiracies would actually govern. I just don't
> want to be a (passive) part of it.
>
"In the frigid football at the end of the century, which detests defeat
and forbids all fun, that man was one of the few who proved that fantasy
can be efficient."
~Galeano on Maradona
Bruce D. Scott
Nov 9, 2016, 9:11:21 PM11/9/16
to
Chagney Hunt <neop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am, as much as the next guy, curious how the people that promoted
> magical thinking and conspiracies would actually govern. I just don't
> want to be a (passive) part of it.
The first to feel it will be the rust belt supporters who actually think
> I am, as much as the next guy, curious how the people that promoted
> magical thinking and conspiracies would actually govern. I just don't
> want to be a (passive) part of it.
he is going to reverse the historical trend of the USA back to a normal
level, as the historical anomaly of post-WWII dominance recedes into the
past. Under normal circumstances, the USA will be a mostly regional
power much like Russia and China or the EU. I don't think Trump is
going to do anything to remove the corporate legalism barriers to
individuals trying to form successful small companies in traditional
industries like shopkeeping and furniture and household appliances.
If you are successful you get bought up or destroyed. That's what has
to stop.
Bruce D. Scott
Nov 9, 2016, 9:18:14 PM11/9/16
to
MH <MHno...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
> On 2016-11-07 6:59 PM, Bruce D. Scott wrote:
>> Those are real gambles for someone older who already has a position...
>
> Not really, if you can convince them to hire at a higher level than
> Assistant Prof, which is sometimes fully negotiable (sometimes not).
Usually they want someone younger to "grow into the position", right?
> You have to remember this is Canada. Tenure is not a big deal, nor is
> promotion. Everyone who has a pulse and a grant and publishes (and
How competitive is it? Do you also grow factors of 10 or more too many
students who are copies of their professors or who just run their
group's simulations?
> different elsewhere except maybe U of T, McGill, and UBC, who all give
> themselves airs (only partially justifiably).
What about SFU? (That's where General Fusion is, roughly)
> Plus our grant scene is considerably more humane than that in the US,
> although CIHR is getting a lot like NIH.
Does that mean the entrenched network problem? "Alte Seilschaften" as
they say in Germany.
> On 2016-11-07 6:59 PM, Bruce D. Scott wrote:
>> Those are real gambles for someone older who already has a position...
>
> Not really, if you can convince them to hire at a higher level than
> Assistant Prof, which is sometimes fully negotiable (sometimes not).
Usually they want someone younger to "grow into the position", right?
> You have to remember this is Canada. Tenure is not a big deal, nor is
> promotion. Everyone who has a pulse and a grant and publishes (and
How competitive is it? Do you also grow factors of 10 or more too many
students who are copies of their professors or who just run their
group's simulations?
> different elsewhere except maybe U of T, McGill, and UBC, who all give
> themselves airs (only partially justifiably).
What about SFU? (That's where General Fusion is, roughly)
> Plus our grant scene is considerably more humane than that in the US,
> although CIHR is getting a lot like NIH.
Does that mean the entrenched network problem? "Alte Seilschaften" as
they say in Germany.
Murat Bey
Nov 10, 2016, 12:04:17 AM11/10/16
to
Sven Mischkies
Nov 10, 2016, 3:31:02 AM11/10/16
to
and pray.
I can't believe I am the only one who predicted the correct outcome
here. Do you all live in la la land? ;)
Murat Bey
Nov 10, 2016, 10:47:58 AM11/10/16
to
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/10/democrats-working-class-americans-us-election
Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more
Robert Reich
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama helped shift power away from the people towards corporations. It was this that created an opening for Donald Trump
What has happened in America should not be seen as a victory for hatefulness over decency. It is more accurately understood as a repudiation of the American power structure.
At the core of that structure are the political leaders of both parties, their political operatives, and fundraisers; the major media, centered in New York and Washington DC; the country’s biggest corporations, their top executives, and Washington lobbyists and trade associations; the biggest Wall Street banks, their top officers, traders, hedge-fund and private-equity managers, and their lackeys in Washington; and the wealthy individuals who invest directly in politics.
At the start of the 2016 election cycle, this power structure proclaimed Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush shoo-ins for the nominations of the Democratic and Republican parties. After all, both of these individuals had deep bases of funders, well-established networks of political insiders, experienced political advisers and all the political name recognition any candidate could possibly want.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the White House. The presidency was won by Donald Trump, who made his fortune marketing office towers and casinos, and, more recently, starring in a popular reality-television program, and who has never held elective office or had anything to do with the Republican party. Hillary Clinton narrowly won the popular vote, but not enough of the states and their electors secure a victory.
Hillary Clinton’s defeat is all the more remarkable in that her campaign vastly outspent the Trump campaign on television and radio advertisements, and get-out-the-vote efforts. Moreover, her campaign had the support in the general election not of only the kingpins of the Democratic party but also many leading Republicans, including most of the politically active denizens of Wall Street and the top executives of America’s largest corporations, and even former Republican president George HW Bush. Her campaign team was run by seasoned professionals who knew the ropes. She had the visible and forceful backing of Barack Obama, whose popularity has soared in recent months, and his popular wife. And, of course, she had her husband.
Trump, by contrast, was shunned by the power structure. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate in 2012, actively worked against Trump’s nomination. Many senior Republicans refused to endorse him, or even give him their support. The Republican National Committee did not raise money for Trump to the extent it had for other Republican candidates for president.
What happened?
There had been hints of the political earthquake to come. Trump had won the Republican primaries, after all. More tellingly, Clinton had been challenged in the Democratic primaries by the unlikeliest of candidates – a 74-year-old Jewish senator from Vermont who described himself as a democratic socialist and who was not even a Democrat. Bernie Sanders went on to win 22 states and 47% of the vote in those primaries. Sanders’ major theme was that the country’s political and economic system was rigged in favor of big corporations, Wall Street and the very wealthy.
The power structure of America wrote off Sanders as an aberration, and, until recently, didn’t take Trump seriously. A respected political insider recently told me most Americans were largely content with the status quo. “The economy is in good shape,” he said. “Most Americans are better off than they’ve been in years.”
Recent economic indicators may be up, but those indicators don’t reflect the insecurity most Americans continue to feel, nor the seeming arbitrariness and unfairness they experience. Nor do the major indicators show the linkages many Americans see between wealth and power, stagnant or declining real wages, soaring CEO pay, and the undermining of democracy by big money.
Median family income is lower now than it was 16 years ago, adjusted for inflation. Workers without college degrees – the old working class – have fallen furthest. Most economic gains, meanwhile, have gone to top. These gains have translated into political power to elicit bank bailouts, corporate subsidies, special tax loopholes, favorable trade deals and increasing market power without interference by anti-monopoly enforcement – all of which have further reduced wages and pulled up profits.
The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in “swing” suburbs.
Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for four of those years had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time they failed to reverse the decline in working-class wages and economic security. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.
They stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the white working class – failing to reform labor laws to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violate them, or help workers form unions with simple up-or-down votes. Partly as a result, union membership sank from 22% of all workers when Bill Clinton was elected president to less than 12% today, and the working class lost bargaining leverage to get a share of the economy’s gains.
Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify – with the result that large corporations have grown far larger, and major industries more concentrated. The unsurprising result of this combination – more trade, declining unionization and more industry concentration – has been to shift political and economic power to big corporations and the wealthy, and to shaft the working class. This created an opening for Donald Trump’s authoritarian demagoguery, and his presidency.
Now Americans have rebelled by supporting someone who wants to fortify America against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Trump’s isolationism will stymie economic growth. But most Americans couldn’t care less about growth because for years they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.
The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn’t wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump.
Democrats once represented the working class. Not any more
Robert Reich
Bill Clinton and Barack Obama helped shift power away from the people towards corporations. It was this that created an opening for Donald Trump
What has happened in America should not be seen as a victory for hatefulness over decency. It is more accurately understood as a repudiation of the American power structure.
At the core of that structure are the political leaders of both parties, their political operatives, and fundraisers; the major media, centered in New York and Washington DC; the country’s biggest corporations, their top executives, and Washington lobbyists and trade associations; the biggest Wall Street banks, their top officers, traders, hedge-fund and private-equity managers, and their lackeys in Washington; and the wealthy individuals who invest directly in politics.
At the start of the 2016 election cycle, this power structure proclaimed Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush shoo-ins for the nominations of the Democratic and Republican parties. After all, both of these individuals had deep bases of funders, well-established networks of political insiders, experienced political advisers and all the political name recognition any candidate could possibly want.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the White House. The presidency was won by Donald Trump, who made his fortune marketing office towers and casinos, and, more recently, starring in a popular reality-television program, and who has never held elective office or had anything to do with the Republican party. Hillary Clinton narrowly won the popular vote, but not enough of the states and their electors secure a victory.
Hillary Clinton’s defeat is all the more remarkable in that her campaign vastly outspent the Trump campaign on television and radio advertisements, and get-out-the-vote efforts. Moreover, her campaign had the support in the general election not of only the kingpins of the Democratic party but also many leading Republicans, including most of the politically active denizens of Wall Street and the top executives of America’s largest corporations, and even former Republican president George HW Bush. Her campaign team was run by seasoned professionals who knew the ropes. She had the visible and forceful backing of Barack Obama, whose popularity has soared in recent months, and his popular wife. And, of course, she had her husband.
Trump, by contrast, was shunned by the power structure. Mitt Romney, the Republican presidential candidate in 2012, actively worked against Trump’s nomination. Many senior Republicans refused to endorse him, or even give him their support. The Republican National Committee did not raise money for Trump to the extent it had for other Republican candidates for president.
What happened?
There had been hints of the political earthquake to come. Trump had won the Republican primaries, after all. More tellingly, Clinton had been challenged in the Democratic primaries by the unlikeliest of candidates – a 74-year-old Jewish senator from Vermont who described himself as a democratic socialist and who was not even a Democrat. Bernie Sanders went on to win 22 states and 47% of the vote in those primaries. Sanders’ major theme was that the country’s political and economic system was rigged in favor of big corporations, Wall Street and the very wealthy.
The power structure of America wrote off Sanders as an aberration, and, until recently, didn’t take Trump seriously. A respected political insider recently told me most Americans were largely content with the status quo. “The economy is in good shape,” he said. “Most Americans are better off than they’ve been in years.”
Recent economic indicators may be up, but those indicators don’t reflect the insecurity most Americans continue to feel, nor the seeming arbitrariness and unfairness they experience. Nor do the major indicators show the linkages many Americans see between wealth and power, stagnant or declining real wages, soaring CEO pay, and the undermining of democracy by big money.
Median family income is lower now than it was 16 years ago, adjusted for inflation. Workers without college degrees – the old working class – have fallen furthest. Most economic gains, meanwhile, have gone to top. These gains have translated into political power to elicit bank bailouts, corporate subsidies, special tax loopholes, favorable trade deals and increasing market power without interference by anti-monopoly enforcement – all of which have further reduced wages and pulled up profits.
The Democratic party once represented the working class. But over the last three decades the party has been taken over by Washington-based fundraisers, bundlers, analysts, and pollsters who have focused instead on raising campaign money from corporate and Wall Street executives and getting votes from upper middle-class households in “swing” suburbs.
Democrats have occupied the White House for 16 of the last 24 years, and for four of those years had control of both houses of Congress. But in that time they failed to reverse the decline in working-class wages and economic security. Both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama ardently pushed for free trade agreements without providing millions of blue-collar workers who thereby lost their jobs means of getting new ones that paid at least as well.
They stood by as corporations hammered trade unions, the backbone of the white working class – failing to reform labor laws to impose meaningful penalties on companies that violate them, or help workers form unions with simple up-or-down votes. Partly as a result, union membership sank from 22% of all workers when Bill Clinton was elected president to less than 12% today, and the working class lost bargaining leverage to get a share of the economy’s gains.
Bill Clinton and Obama also allowed antitrust enforcement to ossify – with the result that large corporations have grown far larger, and major industries more concentrated. The unsurprising result of this combination – more trade, declining unionization and more industry concentration – has been to shift political and economic power to big corporations and the wealthy, and to shaft the working class. This created an opening for Donald Trump’s authoritarian demagoguery, and his presidency.
Now Americans have rebelled by supporting someone who wants to fortify America against foreigners as well as foreign-made goods. The power structure understandably fears that Trump’s isolationism will stymie economic growth. But most Americans couldn’t care less about growth because for years they have received few of its benefits, while suffering most of its burdens in the forms of lost jobs and lower wages.
The power structure is shocked by the outcome of the 2016 election because it has cut itself off from the lives of most Americans. Perhaps it also doesn’t wish to understand, because that would mean acknowledging its role in enabling the presidency of Donald Trump.
MH
Nov 11, 2016, 1:47:53 PM11/11/16
to
On 2016-11-09 7:18 PM, Bruce D. Scott wrote:
> MH <MHno...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>> On 2016-11-07 6:59 PM, Bruce D. Scott wrote:
>
>>> Those are real gambles for someone older who already has a position...
>>
>> Not really, if you can convince them to hire at a higher level than
>> Assistant Prof, which is sometimes fully negotiable (sometimes not).
>
> Usually they want someone younger to "grow into the position", right?
depends. So often these days they are hiring people in their late 30s
> MH <MHno...@ucalgary.ca> wrote:
>> On 2016-11-07 6:59 PM, Bruce D. Scott wrote:
>
>>> Those are real gambles for someone older who already has a position...
>>
>> Not really, if you can convince them to hire at a higher level than
>> Assistant Prof, which is sometimes fully negotiable (sometimes not).
>
> Usually they want someone younger to "grow into the position", right?
and early 40s into "junior" assistant prof positions anyway - pretty
hard to call them young
>
>> You have to remember this is Canada. Tenure is not a big deal, nor is
>> promotion. Everyone who has a pulse and a grant and publishes (and
>
> How competitive is it?
there are usually lots of qualified applicants. 70-100 is not uncommon
in our department, though the number is lower if it is for a research
chair with a highly specific field. Of the applicants 20-30 are worth
taking seriously. And of course different universities attract
different calibres of candidates.
We do have a Canadians first policy, which was not observed very
rigourously until last year, when there were changes at immigration
because of abuses with the temporary foreign worker program. We still
hire quite a few non-Canadians, though. Last two in our department were
Yanks.
How competitive is tenure ? Not all all. In my department there has only
been one case of someone not getting tenure in the last 26 years.
My oldest son is doing the interview rounds for Academic jobs right now
- I am curious as to how it will work out, but he has had several
interviews for good jobs so far.
Do you also grow factors of 10 or more too many
> students who are copies of their professors
are gainfully employed, all but one in Science, and several have had
very good research careers already, whereas others are award winning
teachers at smaller Universities. But I am less confident it will be
the same for the current batch
or who just run their
> group's simulations?
>
>> different elsewhere except maybe U of T, McGill, and UBC, who all give
>> themselves airs (only partially justifiably).
>
> What about SFU? (That's where General Fusion is, roughly)
country. Usually mentioned as up there with Waterloo (famous for
engineering, math an coop programs) Guelph and Victoria.
The top tier is large-medical doctoral universities, of which there are
14-15 depending how you count them. This would include Toronto, UBC,
McGill, Montréal, Alberta, McMaster, Calgary, Ottawa, Western, Queen's,
Laval, Dalhousie, Saskatchewan and Manitoba, more or less in that order
according to the various somewhat useless and unreliable ranking systems
that are out there. In some of the international rankings Waterloo,
and maybe even Guelph and SFU, would be ahead of the last bunch on the
other list.
As of last year U Calgary was the top ranked University under 50 years
old in North American, for whatever that is worth. Since we turned 50
in 2016, we won't be able to brag about that any more.
>
>> Plus our grant scene is considerably more humane than that in the US,
>> although CIHR is getting a lot like NIH.
>
> Does that mean the entrenched network problem? "Alte Seilschaften" as
> they say in Germany.
Success rates way too low, too much concentration of money into too few
>> Plus our grant scene is considerably more humane than that in the US,
>> although CIHR is getting a lot like NIH.
>
> Does that mean the entrenched network problem? "Alte Seilschaften" as
> they say in Germany.
hands, people not even getting first grant until their 40s, and so on .
I am not sure this is result of an entrenched network. I think to some
extent it was the previous govt channeling all the funding into applied
work with industry partnerships.
>
Jesper Lauridsen
Nov 12, 2016, 4:58:55 PM11/12/16
to
On 2016-11-08, Sven Mischkies <hs...@der-ball-ist-rund.net> wrote:
> Chagney Hunt <neop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/8/2016 8:44 AM, Jesus Petry wrote:
>>
>> > You're there with your slightly optimistic (for a human) prediction.
>>
>> I have to balance out Sven.
>
>
> How did you know I would join?? With your powers you shoudl do the
> Chagney Hunt <neop...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11/8/2016 8:44 AM, Jesus Petry wrote:
>>
>> > You're there with your slightly optimistic (for a human) prediction.
>>
>> I have to balance out Sven.
>
>
> Bundesliga contest to challenge the Danish dominance.
What? It's German 1-2 at the top, with a Brazilian third.
Timothy Bruening
Nov 30, 2016, 12:24:21 AM11/30/16
to
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 7:29:12 AM UTC-8, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <09013f82-cd15-4d1f...@googlegroups.com>,
> Jesus Petry <jesus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My first reaction was, of course, shock. But then a guy that acted like
> >a complete idiot the whole campaign goes to make his victory speech and
> >actually sounds reasonable and nice! Let's hope this is the real
> >Trump...
> >
> > Tchau!
> > Jesus Petry
>
> The Democrats committed political suicide
> by putting in Hillary Clinton.
I assume that the suicide stems from her damn e-mails. I predict that next time, the Dems will demand that their candidates pass background checks before running!
> In article <09013f82-cd15-4d1f...@googlegroups.com>,
> Jesus Petry <jesus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My first reaction was, of course, shock. But then a guy that acted like
> >a complete idiot the whole campaign goes to make his victory speech and
> >actually sounds reasonable and nice! Let's hope this is the real
> >Trump...
> >
> > Tchau!
> > Jesus Petry
>
> The Democrats committed political suicide
> by putting in Hillary Clinton.
Timothy Bruening
Nov 30, 2016, 12:28:12 AM11/30/16
to
On Wednesday, November 9, 2016 at 7:29:12 AM UTC-8, The Doctor wrote:
> In article <09013f82-cd15-4d1f...@googlegroups.com>,
> Jesus Petry <jesus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My first reaction was, of course, shock. But then a guy that acted like
> >a complete idiot the whole campaign goes to make his victory speech and
> >actually sounds reasonable and nice! Let's hope this is the real
> >Trump...
> >
> > Tchau!
> > Jesus Petry
>
> The Democrats committed political suicide
> by putting in Hillary Clinton.
She spent too much time bashing Trump, and not enough time explaining how her economic program would help the white working class of the Rust Belt. It never occurred to her to chant "Americans of all colors unite for a $15 Minimum Wage and Universal Health Care!".
> Jesus Petry <jesus...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My first reaction was, of course, shock. But then a guy that acted like
> >a complete idiot the whole campaign goes to make his victory speech and
> >actually sounds reasonable and nice! Let's hope this is the real
> >Trump...
> >
> > Tchau!
> > Jesus Petry
>
> The Democrats committed political suicide
> by putting in Hillary Clinton.
0 new messages