Discussion in 'General' started by superbob, Dec 16, 2016.
Yeah, that's the district I grew up in (DeKalb County). That this was a runoff is already crazy, that district is so deeply red that it is almost inconceivable to me that a Democrat had a shot. Here's the breakdown since 2000:
2000 - Bush for president 68%-32% over Gore and for congress 75%-25%.
2002 - Congress was an 80/20 split for Republicans.
2004 - 70/30 for Bush and 100/0(!) for Republicans in Congress.
2006 - Congress 62/38 Republican
2008 - Democrats won everything nationally, but it voted 62/38 for McCain and 70/30 for Congress.
2010 - Again 100/0 Republican for Congress.
2012 - 62/38 for Romney, 65/35 Republican for Congress.
2014 - 65/35 Republican for Congress.
This is the district I remember. Then, of course, you get Hillary (who was relatively hated ever since her comments from when her husband was president) against Trump, and you get...
2016 - 51/49 for Trump, 62/38 Republican for Congress.
So the district in general is still very, very red (almost a 2:1 margin), they just hate Trump. Trump lost to Rubio in the primary by 11 points. So when Handel wins 52/48 running as Trump Jr., that's not terribly surprising - though to be frank I am surprised Ossoff couldn't flip a few more votes, given how much people hate Hillary. I imagine there are a lot of people who just can't bring themselves to vote Democrat.
Part of it is that the district is also the 6th "best educated" district in the nation (as measured by college degrees) (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/19/...-explains-why-georgias-election-is-close.html), and college+ educated voters didn't like Trump's platform. Trump and Handel ran on a lot of hot air and misinformation, Handel in particular is known for doing PR damage to the Susan B. Komen foundation by bringing her dislike of Planned Parenthood into budgetary decisions (and she was forced to resign once she finally got her way, and the decision was reversed anyways after the backlash).
A commenter on a NY Times article I think gave the context best yesterday - and I'm doing this from memory, so it's not exact - "The race doesn't mean anything or reflect anything on a national scale. You have a moderate Democrat who doesn't fit into the national ultra-progressive Berniecrat narrative at all in a district that strongly votes Republican. Unless you had a more representative candidate running, this would in no way predict how Democrats would do on a larger scale in 2018."
Some Democrats just blame Pelosi (quote from the title - "Our brand is worse than Trump": https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/us/pelosi-georgia-ossoff-democrats.html
Really, that's just Democrats crying over a race that was already extremely unlikely for them to win. To be fair, to see hope when in a bad place and have it dashed is pretty painful. To talk like some people are talking though, they must have thought the Democrats had a really good shot at winning.
As for all of the money spent, my brother (who still lives there) said this of all the ads and phone calls: "each party has convinced me that I shouldn't vote for their candidate."
To me, the story is that this was a race at all. I'm already partially in shock that the race was this close (or that Ossoff got 48% of the vote originally), I'm hoping it's a sign that moderate centrists will do well in 2018 (I'll take any party, just someone get the crazies out).
Edit: I mention a lot of NY Times articles in this post... the Times is the paper on my rotation at the moment (until I hit my free article limit). The numbers at the top were pulled from the Atlanta Journal Constitution (AJC). Also, I saw the Pelosi article while pulling up data and it seemed funny to me so I linked it.
Edit 2: Identified a basic arithmetic mistake. Corrected.
So I was reading about polling errors (specifically about Macron - they said polls got it right, but they only did from a winner/loser perspective, they were off by just over 10 percentage points), and stumbled across this from 538:
Note the date on that article (11/4/2016). A lot of time was spent after the election talking about how the polls "got it wrong," but they actually didn't - Trump's victory was within a reasonable margin of error for the polls. The reason that it took everyone by surprise is because that margin of error actually flipped the winner and loser. Here's a good couple of sentences from the middle of the article:
Here's the concluding paragraph:
Clinton didn't win by 3 percentage points, she won by 2.1.
If you're interested, polls in the US in recent history have had a margin of error of about 2%. That 2% is a double whammy - if you are 2% off in favor of Clinton, that means Clinton loses 2% and Trump gains that 2%. That's a 4% flip. From the first paragraph in the linked article, at the time Clinton was polling at a 3.3% lead. That means if the polling errors were known and identified, that 3.3% lead (assuming a 2% margin) could in actuality be a 0.7% loss. Turns out it wasn't, but the actual error margin of 1.2% was enough to give Trump the win electorally.
For the record, 136,628,459 votes were tallied. That 1.2% error is effectively 1,639,542 votes that were predicted in the polls for Clinton by error, but instead went elsewhere (likely to Trump).
Edit: Corrected math in the final sentence.
How that translates to some of us..
"Polls are always right if they are in our party's favor. " and "There's a margin of error to consider if polls don't work out to being in our party's favor."
That's not how math works, polls are never 100% accurate by definition. The 538 blog was going so far as to say that Trump winning shouldn't have been the shocker it was, but suddenly that's a bad thing to Trump supporters?
The point of the article I was originally reading is that when they're off but the winner they predict still wins, almost no one pays attention to it. Case in point was Macron, Macron's polls were off by more than 10% (he received 10% higher votes than expected), but because they predicted him winning everyone turned a blind eye and said the polls were accurate. They weren't, they were highly inaccurate. When the polls predict wrong, people generally like to know why. 538 was simply pointing out that the result was within the margin of error of the polls - the incorrect assumption was that Hillary Clinton was set to win because she polled higher when she didn't clear that margin of error. The media interpreted polls incorrectly - as winners and losers - instead of how they should have been interpreted, which is as a likelihood.
Again, the [national vote total] polls were only off by 1.2%. That's less than our historical average. The polls essentially weren't wrong at all, our interpretation of them was.
I keep getting lumped in with Hillary Clinton, which I kind of get because my policy stance is more left than many people here, but I wonder how many times I have to say I didn't vote for her.
Have you all seen a recent thing of articles saying "alleged attacker shouted "god is great" in Arabic before exploding, stabbing, driving etc"
Guess allahu ackbar isn't PC /acceptable anymore? Guess that is the new campaign for acceptance and what not
@Killa - I don't know that it's PC-ness, it's just translating what they're saying. I'd ascribe it to laziness if nothing else.
I googled "shouted allahu ackbar" and the following news sources specifically said "allahu ackbar" in reference to the Michigan incident:
Los Angeles Times
New York Daily News
Edit: When I specifically looked for the next two (they didn't come up by default, Google's filtering for me I guess) they also had it:
...and like that you lost me.
Exactly. I am Independant myself. I have seen it used by both sides. If not making up polls ( sorta like how Hillary had 93% chance to win the election ), either side makes a bunch of different polls across different websites and uses the poll that is most convenient for them at that time. Let's also take into fact that some of these polls are set up to be rigged somewhat. A vote for party X will go through just fine, but a vote for party Y will 'mysteriously' bring up an error message and not be counted.
@Vicious - trust me, I know. It's some sort of masochism I have, I don't know why I feel compelled to read comments on news sites (and YouTube...). Every now and then you get someone reasonable though, which probably is a sign of the apocalypse.
If you asked me the top reason I couldn't support the Republican platform any more, it would be crap like this:
So what crazy shit did Trump do....AGAIN on twitter? Why hasn't the black caucus booked a meeting with the President? It took them 600 days to meet Obama smh.
Welp, off to start another witch hunt with voter fraud. Anything to keep our minds off the Russia investigation I guess.
Just for my own edification - can someone who supports him tell me what he's doing right?
Good. I thought i broke the thread or something by agreeing a bit with Cane there. Interesting that North Korea is threatening the land of anime. Which by extension is threatening anime fans on the rest of the globe.
Shits getting real with NK capable of intercontinental ballistic missile capable of hitting Alaska. Really it's in everyone's interest to continue having tough talk and sanctions. No one wants to see a nuclear war.
@Holy - You broke my mind by your disregard for mathematics Just because someone has a 93% chance to win doesn't mean they're going to win, it means if that scenario played out 1,000,000 times we'd expect around 930,000 of them to have that person as the winner. As I mentioned before - the polls were very accurate, within 1.2%. It just happened in this case that the 1.2% was the extremely important part, which lead Trump to his 7% chance of victory. People win the lottery with far worse odds, after all.
As for NK, they've finally given the US an excuse to wipe them off the map. If Trump threatens to do just that, we'll see if China is willing to actually crack down on them. Until now NK's never been a viable threat (though it was always a budding one), so even though sanctions are in place we haven't actually held China to them for a variety of reasons. With a leader like KJU though, we can't really afford to sit on our laurels any more - he is unhinged enough to actually fire at us. China gets serious or we do.
For godsakes some politician use Friendship no Jutsu and end this madness.
It's like reading a manga every day.. good vs evil...which is open to interpretation as to who good and evil are and who the author would be.
I will be auditioning for the role of Oregon Democrat Ron Wyden because I want to abuse that god awful lisp he has into some super douche power.
His suit would be some variation of the wonder twins 'superfriends' in a speedo and glitter. Wonder Douche Power Activate!
Form of: Ronny!
Pff, Good vs Evil... shows what you know. It's straight Evil vs Evil. Even last year when I was completely aghast that Trump was nominated, I still voted third party because I hate the Democratic machine almost as much as the Republican one. Third parties REALLY dropped the ball though - two hated candidates is the ideal time for them to step up to the plate. Gary Johnson tripped coming out of the dugout.
Ron Wyden is actually one of the better politicians - he understands how computers work at least enough to know that things like backdoors in encryption is a terrible idea. He also advocates (and votes) for privacy measures. Here's an interview with him from 2016:
Here's info on Rule 41. Was originally going to put this in my last post, but it got wayyyyy too big.
Rule 41 was a change on how warrants can be issued. Essentially what happened is that a judge in Virginia signed a warrant that allowed the FBI to host a child pornography site, collect the information from people who visited, and then go and arrest them (apparently that's not entrapment, because they're not targeting anyone in particular). They arrested people from around the US (and the globe, but that's another thing).
Almost all of the arrests got thrown out in court, because a district judge in Virginia didn't have standing to authorize a warrant that applied nationally.
Rule 41 is this:
So essentially a judge in a district where any activity related to a crime (IE where it happened or affected someone, in my reading) can allow the authorities to hack anyone outside of the judge's jurisdiction if:
a) if the location has been concealed
b) - here's 18 U.S.C. § 1030(a)(5):
So what's the big deal?
Let's say you get infected by a virus, that virus attempts to propagate itself. Under this rule, the FBI can remotely access your computer and copy your data, because your computer was used to mask the virus's creator.
If you're using a VPN - which I always advocate because fuck you AT&T - you're done. That's automatically concealment.
And here's me letting my inner-lawyer-wannabe go crazy, they could in theory use this if you're using a wireless router at all. Why? Routers use what's called NAT, which effectively splits your 1 IP address into multiple IP addresses. You and anyone else connected to your router have the same external IP address, it's the router making all the traffic go to the right place. If I connect to your wifi (or if we're both connected to Starbucks free wifi... please no), I'm attempting to conceal my location. Your IP address can identify your location (especially with the help from ISPs), but by me accessing wirelessly I could be at a different location.
That's a HUGE stretch though, and hopefully the judge would also make sure that they think that's actually happening before they sign the warrant to collect everyone's data that uses the same router. Hopefully. Then again...
Separate names with a comma.