Election Predictions....

Discussion in 'Elections & Campaigns' started by JIMV, Sep 13, 2014.

  1. Phil

    Phil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    2,219
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    Looks like I got 27 Senate predictions right so far, 6 wrong and New Hampshire pending. 2 of my wrong predictions might be close enough for reexamination if anyone cares. My wrong predictions include Louisiana, where David Duke finished seventh and will not be in the runoff.
    For the record nothing about the Presidential race surprised me, and please note how many margins of victory were less than the other candidate totals.
    Don't get mad at those extra candidates. Get mad at the top 2.
     
  2. OverDrive

    OverDrive Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,990
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    48
    The Hillary ad (showing many of the Trump 'mis-steps') played all thru Sundry & MNF football didnt work which baffled the blubbering, stammering Carville on MSNBC last night!
     
  3. Brewskier

    Brewskier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2011
    Messages:
    48,910
    Likes Received:
    9,641
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    [​IMG]
     
  4. OverDrive

    OverDrive Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    11,990
    Likes Received:
    77
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Whatever happened to the New Yorker mag and its front cover to be published today of Trump with 'Loser' plastered across his face?!
     
  5. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, it is now all over. And I will readily admit that I was mistaken.

    I thought that Donald Trump might--might--win the popular vote; but that Hillary Clinton would probably win the electoral vote. Instead, it looks to be just the opposite: Hillary Clinton may win the popular vote (it should be very close there); but Donald Trump easily won the electoral vote--which is what really matters.

    Of course, if he does not also win the popular vote--and he would have to settle for a plurality; an outright majority does not seem possible)--he cannot really claim a mandate; and that could hamper his efforts to govern effectively.

    This is not to say that I am the only one to miss this call: Larry Sabato (whom I greatly admire and respect; he has a 98 percent accuracy rate) is today running a headline that says, "Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa."
     
  6. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Really matters? Yes, to win in the convoluted electoral process that is as old as our constitution - in a day and age when horses where the main means of transportation - what really matters is an entirely reformulated voting system.

    From here: History, Electoral College, excerpt:
    Like "Ole Betsy", just another vestige from an age long gone that inspires nostalgia in many. But, it is not a truly democratic process. Only the final vote should count in our wacky Two-Party system (by happenstance, not by law).

    Why should we have a Two-Party system that can be so evidently manipulated by BigMoney Plutocrats.

    Here is my suggestion for a Better Voting System (for a country that should have "evolved" since 1787):
    *An electronic national identification card (with a paper version) both employing a photograph, based upon a verifiable Birth Certificate (in English) and periodically corroborated by the authorities in the state of residence. (You move around? Yes, you change your definitive voting address.)
    *Electronic voting in all voting constituencies, with access to the ballot only by means of the electronic national identification card. (Upon decease, the law requires the voting-system to be informed by local authorities. Any violation of the voting-system is punishable by an automatic non-revocable jail sentence.)
    *Ballot Due Date established, but no need for physical appearance and therefore no "absentee ballots". Voting by means of access to a secured national voting server from whichever residence internationally. (With American_non-resident voters having a right to independent representation in Congress!)
    *Primaries run by individual parties, and apart from the national voting system, will present winning candidates. Who will be included on both local, state and national ballots, whichever the occasion.
    *The winning candidate must have a majority (>50%) of all authorized voters.
    *If not obtained, the two candidates with the largest number of votes will be presented for a final vote, again by electronic Internet-balloting.
    *Could be used for National Referendums (but a lot more complicated).

    The above will assure (1) only authorized voters participate, and (2) the voting will be fair and impartial linked directly to all plebiscites national, state and local. (See article: Election Fraud in America: A Comparative Analysis)

    The above proposition, however, does not avoid "gerrymandering" of the vote, which is another kind of voter-fraud. That could easily be done away with by a Federal law exacting that voter state and Federal elections be performed according to existing town, city, county, state boundaries by means of Proportional Representation*.

    *The basic approach of proportional representation is simple: legislators are elected in multi-member districts instead of single-member districts, and the number of seats that a party wins in an election is proportional to the amount of its support among voters.
     
  7. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Your breezy dismissal of our Constitution (it is merely the object of mindless "nostalgia," in your view) notwithstanding, the fact is that the Founders never intended for the US to be a direct democracy.

    Rather, they intended for it to be a constitutional republic.

    Would the direct election of the president be more democratic?

    Certainly.

    But it is not what the Founders preferred.

    And it is surely not what I prefer, either.
     
  8. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I am not dismissing the Constitution nor attacking its "sainthood".

    I am merely stating that it is a document of another day and age, essential to the establishment of a government and foundational it its concept of a "balance-of-power" - that is, a tripartite system of governance (Executive, Legislative and Judicial).

    It also outdated. Period.

    It mus to be updated, which is the work of the Bill of Rights - which was last revamped in May, 1992 with the 27th Amendment. (Very important, about HofR salary payments.)

    It needs a good many more, but that won't happen until Americans wake up to the fact that their rights to a decent distribution of income are being trampled. An amendment is necessary to institute fair and just Income and Wealth taxation. Thus ridding ourselves of the present contraption that is an outright Bill of Tax Forgiveness allowing all sorts of high-minded deductions that reduce the taxable income, thus pushing income up into Wealth.

    Making taxation wholly unfair, unjust, biased, prejudiced, inequitable, discriminatory, partisan, preferential, weighted, partial, one-sided and a rip-off.

    Yes, tantamount to "theft" ...
     
  9. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Because you don't understand the difference between wrong and right?
     
  10. Thehumankind

    Thehumankind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    When one is elucidated with the statements above by Frederick Douglass and know the actual right for being a person and a citizen,then certainly there will be no confusion about what should be right or wrong.
     
  11. Thehumankind

    Thehumankind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    In a democratic process,It is quite difficult to get a 100% vote from the electorate,
    that is why we always settle with the "majority vote",
    so always expect oppositions and discordance.
     
  12. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you believe that any important part of it is "outdated," there are two available remedies.

    One is a second Constitutional Convention. (It has never yet been attempted; but that does not speak to its availability.)

    The other is the amendment process. (The Constitution has been amended some 27 times--10 of which are known as the Bill of Rights; plus 17 subsequent times.)

    But you appear to be on the losing end of your "wants"; so you are really not content to try this, are you?

    This sounds like just another pitch for democratic socialism (disguised as a mere tweak of our current capitalist system)...
     
  13. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Congratulations, you got in one! Just another pitch. Meaning coming direct from Bernie? Well yess, because Bernie got it from the EU - where there are 740 million people living in a Social Democracy.

    That is, btw, more than twice the population of the US. OK? That small factoid should impress, but I somehow doubt it will.

    And the tweak in question is rather minor. It is to throw into the junkyard, where it belongs, the blatantly unfair upper-income flat-rate taxation of Income in the US. You know, the one that Piketty has shown attributes half the total income that the nation generated into the hands of just less than half the American population. (I call them the "10Percenters".)

    As indicated by his research here:
    View attachment 46749

    What is Social Democracy? It interferes with America's "Capitalist System" - by means of progressive taxation - only to assure that the benefits of work are distributed fairly and inequitably.

    Which does not mean equally! It has never meant "equally" except under Socialism and, worse yet, Communism.
     
  14. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    L'Amour profonde blesse énormément ...
     
  15. Phil

    Phil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    2,219
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    I posted my proposal for the system years ago.
    Suppose close states with even numbers of electoral votes (like Maine and New Hampshire) split close races 2-2.
    That dispute in Florida in 2000 would not have bee very loud if the winner got one more electoral vote than the loser. Ralph Nader would have earned 6 Electoral votes (half from California) and kept both from a majority so that election would have gone to the House of Representatives, as would many others including 1992 and 1996. I'm very busy so maybe one of you can do the math before me. How would California have been divided? New York, Illinois and other close states? Would Hillary have come closer losing 2-1 in many 3-vote states, or would Trump have even more votes by getting a few in blue states?
    Of course these races would all be very different if a third party candidate could get a few dozen votes every time. Perot I think woulf have had about 106 and 93 in his 2 races.
     
  16. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    That is doubtless true.

    And the democratic socialism (or "Social Democracy," as you have phrased it) is precisely the reason why I feel very little in common with the contemporary Europeans.

    To reiterate: I believe in a constitutional republic--not in a mere democracy.

    And I will strongly oppose any attempt to take us in the direction of a true democracy.

    Perhaps that speaks to the reason that I am a Republican, rather than a Democrat.

    I am sincerely hoping that you do understand this...

    Oh, I see.

    You believe in Soak The Rich theory...
     
  17. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    AN UNEARNED PRIVILEGE

    Well, I think you need a dictionary (like a lotta people on this forum):
    *Republic - a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
    *Democracy - a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

    If you can see any fundamental contradiction between those two definitions, you are smarter than I am. They seem very similar to me.

    Our democracy today is correctly typified by both of the above definitions; as seen only two days ago. Americans seem split between those who prefer the dishonest upper-income taxation that allows the nation's rich and super-rich to amass riches that are well beyond their needs and the rest of us who do not.

    You are protecting an unearned privilege (riches) that was offered you by a warped and unfair upper-income flat-rate tax system implemented by Replicant Ronnie in the 1980s. If you can live with the fact that "the system" has favored you for no particularly good reason whatsoever, then, of course, you are free to do so. It may be an unfair country, but it IS free.

    But privilege has been the bane of most nations since Roman times. Yes, of course, you have convinced yourself that, as regards your wealth, you "earned it". How convenient as an excuse.

    I would not care for the US to go the way the Roman Empire did - it inevitably imploded. As did most of the European monarchies that derived their riches from fighting, conquering land, and exploiting the agricultural produce. Not a bit of that exists today, and European monarchs are just figureheads, kept for nostalgic purposes of grandeur - well off, but not nearly as rich as America's 1Percenters.

    MY POINT?

    And, given the driving forces, there is every reason to believe that history both can and will repeat itself in the US.
    It's just a question of time.

    Because, today, most Americans, like you, believe that progressive income taxation is an inherent evil. Whereas, even if implemented the day after the election of a progressive PotUS, you and yours would remain nonetheless a privileged family, just a bit less so. (There would also be a Wealth Tax.)

    And the money you would pay in taxation would help lower the suffering felt by those below the Poverty Threshold as well as allowing perhaps their children to escape poverty by means of obtaining the skills/competencies necessary in a Tertiary Education that is free, gratis and for nothing.

    Btw, just like your secondary schooling was ...

    Not really. You mis-employ the word "soak". Like many, I feel they should pay there their "just due".

    I hope you are not a smug-person. Because you have a "rude awakening" coming ...
     
  18. Thehumankind

    Thehumankind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    La liberté est un outil.
     
  19. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    La Liberté consiste de plusieurs outils et pas uniquement un seul.

    (Liberty consists of many tools and not just one*.)

    *That's the hard part ...
     
  20. Thehumankind

    Thehumankind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Déclaration des droits de l'homme et du citoyen.
    I think to make it easier it should be "with individuals equally protected by the law" of course.
     
  21. Conviction

    Conviction Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2016
    Messages:
    3,235
    Likes Received:
    829
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Meh, close enough.
     
  22. pjohns

    pjohns Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2009
    Messages:
    6,916
    Likes Received:
    658
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You have (rather conveniently, perhaps?) omitted the modifier, "constitutional," from the definition of "republic." And we already are aware of your utter contempt for our Constitution: Why, it is "outdated," you claim.

    Yes, there is a significant difference between a constitutional republic and pure democracy (which has been described--correctly, I believe--as mere mob rule).

    Somehow, you seem to be under the illusion that I am wealthy.

    Well, perhaps if you consider an income of just over $38,600 per year to qualify as "wealthy"...

    Of course, you appear to be happy with ad hominem attacks upon anyone with whom you disagree...
     
  23. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    21ST CENTURY

    Bollocks to that notion.

    The constitution is a fine document, but how would you like to be driving a 1930s Chevy?

    Much has happened in the evolution of democracy that has passed America by completely. Namely the movement into a Social Democracy, one that takes into account fundamental notions of "fairness and equitability".

    Given the sharing of Income & Wealth in the US, both grossly unfair, you are living in the stone-age, not a new millenium - a nation fascinated by the accumulation of Wealth. Which is how the Dork got elected PotUS.

    Heaven help America ...


    Bollocks again! Wherever do you get such silly notions?

    Mob rule just elected the Dork as PotuS? No, democracy was undone by a plurality vote won by Hillary but an Electoral College victory that goes to the Dork. In the only developed nation on earth where such an outcome is possible.

    When we have a cogent answer as to why and how that should happen, I'll let you know.

    For the moment it is a travesty of democracy. The popular vote is the ONLY VOTE that matters, not some concoction developed in a country when trains did not exist and horses were they only means of reporting the voting results to Congress.

    The US must update its voting mechanism to the 21st century ...
     
  24. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Somehow you seem to be under the illusion that I am responding ONLY to you.

    This is a "forum" ...
     
  25. LafayetteBis

    LafayetteBis Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 24, 2016
    Messages:
    9,744
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This was key to the French revolution, instigated by the fact that the upper-section of society (with the monarch's agreement and often insistence) should be "treated differently".

    Of course, under the law of a nation, rich and poor should be treated equitably. It took a while to understand that this same notion of "equitability" needed to be extended beyond the domain of just crime and punishment.

    But also economically. In most modern societies there is the notion that taxation should also be fair and equitable. But as regards "equitable taxation", what is meant?

    This: Taxation must be progressive and take larger amounts from larger incomes. Which is not the least bit the case in the US. Quite the opposite - after the first $100K taxation becomes a flat-tax. See here:
    Taxation - Tax Foundation  Upper-Income Taxation.jpg

    The above is the reason why the rich and super-rich will continue obtain large amounts of Wealth from their Income. Particuarly in a nation plagued by tax-deduction manipulations. Which is how the Dork himself has not paid any taxes since 1991. (Or that Romney, during the 2012 elections admitted that he had paid on 14% taxation on an income of $21M. - see here.)

    The tax-code is riven with deduction loopholes. For instance, this one:
    Taxation - Lower rate capital gains taxation.png

    Anyone who thinks that "playing the tax system" towards amassing huge amounts of money (more than either s/he or their family will ever need) is fair-'n-equitable is only fooling themselves.

    And screwing the rest of us. The above tax-deduction is legalized theft. The deduction is allowed when it should not be, because there is no reason whatsoever that it should NOT BE TAXED at, say, 85%!.

    We are really "suckers" for accepting such "legalized" tax-evasions that make the rich richer than they need be ...
     

Share This Page