|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| How will the DJT Presidency be regarded? |
| Greatened America |
|
38% |
[ 14 ] |
| Bankrupted America |
|
33% |
[ 12 ] |
| Entertained America |
|
8% |
[ 3 ] |
| Enraged America |
|
19% |
[ 7 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 36 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Kwangjuchicken
Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Location: I was abducted by aliens on my way to Korea and forced to be an EFL teacher on this crazy planet.
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:35 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The End is near. PTL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Think about it".   |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Kwangjuchicken
Joined: 01 Sep 2003
Location: I was abducted by aliens on my way to Korea and forced to be an EFL teacher on this crazy planet.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 16, 2016 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kwangjuchicken wrote: |
The End is near. PTL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Think about it". |
AND I STARTED PAGE 3. Think about "#3". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2016 12:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
Honestly, a Trump Presidency may be better than that which would have been offered by any of his GOP rivals. On many economic matters, Trump may even best the more palatable of the potentials, such as Rand Paul.
For example, Trump may pursue a balanced and reasonable anti-trust policy.
I am hoping he crushes the banks, they are powerful threats, humbles Silicon Valley, they are ideological opponents, and shatters the media, they are a nuisance. If Trump takes everything personally . . . well, it could work out after all.
Again, just trying optimism on for size here. Not expecting much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| I suspect that the media depressed her turnout but increased his through the narrative that she had it in the bag. |
Does that not run contrary the the conventional wisdom on polling and voter turnout? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2016 3:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| I suspect that the media depressed her turnout but increased his through the narrative that she had it in the bag. |
Does that not run contrary the the conventional wisdom on polling and voter turnout? |
It seems to me like these two points address different features of an election, with Leon's point focusing on voter turnout rather than voter preference, while the Huffington Post article seems to focus on voter preference rather than voter turnout? After all, even if seeing a poll say, "Hillary Clinton has a 98% chance of winning the Presidency!" causes someone to decide she would be the better President, that only impacts the election if that individual then goes and votes, right?
Another interesting thing about that article is that as I read it and thought about myself, I could not help but notice my own inner mechanisms are the exact opposite of those described: the more "popular support" something has, the more I find myself becoming reflexively wary of it. So I cannot help but wonder, even if this "bandwagon effect" exists as a real phenomenon, to what extent does a "reverse bandwagon effect" also exist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2016 4:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The current calls to abolish the electoral college are interesting. I recently spoke to someone about it, and they went into a rant about how unfair it is, and how Mr. Trump didn't really win, and so on and so forth. I told them I understood what they were saying, pointed out that in order to change it an amendment to the Constitution would be required, and given a high degree of national unity would be required to pass such an amendment, asked what the people interested in such a change were doing or could do to produce that sort of unity. How do you transition from, "You people are repugnant racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, fascist filth who make me scared to live in this country," to, "I need you all to support this constitutional amendment designed specifically to reduce your influence in Presidential politics?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2016 6:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Anyway, I'm just hoping the Trump team remains this inept at appointing people. |
#DonaldJRforHUD |
#Kushner4ShadowPrez |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geldedgoat
Joined: 05 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2016 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| It seems to me like these two points address different features of an election, with Leon's point focusing on voter turnout rather than voter preference, while the Huffington Post article seems to focus on voter preference rather than voter turnout? After all, even if seeing a poll say, "Hillary Clinton has a 98% chance of winning the Presidency!" causes someone to decide she would be the better President, that only impacts the election if that individual then goes and votes, right? |
That's not how I understood it: "Reporting on public opinion not only affects support, but levels of engagement: donations, volunteering and turnout. These bandwagon effects can make polls self-fulfilling prophecies; the predictions of the polls come to pass because the polls not only measure public opinion but also influence public opinion and engagement."
| Quote: |
| So I cannot help but wonder, even if this "bandwagon effect" exists as a real phenomenon, to what extent does a "reverse bandwagon effect" also exist? |
There's certainly some effect there, but I would be more than just a little surprised if it reflected anything but an extreme minority of voters. I would wonder, though, what fraction of the third-party base is influenced similarly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 17, 2016 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| geldedgoat wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| It seems to me like these two points address different features of an election, with Leon's point focusing on voter turnout rather than voter preference, while the Huffington Post article seems to focus on voter preference rather than voter turnout? After all, even if seeing a poll say, "Hillary Clinton has a 98% chance of winning the Presidency!" causes someone to decide she would be the better President, that only impacts the election if that individual then goes and votes, right? |
That's not how I understood it: "Reporting on public opinion not only affects support, but levels of engagement: donations, volunteering and turnout. These bandwagon effects can make polls self-fulfilling prophecies; the predictions of the polls come to pass because the polls not only measure public opinion but also influence public opinion and engagement." |
I guess I skimmed over it too casually, thanks for pointing that out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
It is truly astonishing that Trump won, and its hard to conceive of a reality or contra-factual where he could have won the popular vote, even against Hillary Clinton.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/197576/trump-favorability-trails-presidents-elect.aspx
| Quote: |
Trump's ratings lag behind those of other presidents-elect in large part because Democrats' views of him are much worse than the opposition party's supporters' ratings have been in the past. Whereas 10% of Democrats view Trump favorably, 25% of Republicans had a positive opinion of Clinton, 31% of Democrats had a positive opinion of Bush and 35% of Republicans viewed Obama favorably.
Trump's favorable rating among independents, 39%, is also significantly worse than those of his predecessors. It is 15 points lower than Clinton's rating among independents and 31 points worse than Obama's.
And Trump's 82% favorability among his party's supporters also is lower than that for prior presidents-elect, which range from 88% for Clinton to 95% for Obama. |
He's forked. Given the imminent ethics violations and conflicts, especially since there are probably branches of the gov't emboldened by the FBI's political meddling, I see a President Pence in our not-so-distant future. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| The current calls to abolish the electoral college are interesting. I recently spoke to someone about it, and they went into a rant about how unfair it is, and how Mr. Trump didn't really win, and so on and so forth. I told them I understood what they were saying, pointed out that in order to change it an amendment to the Constitution would be required, and given a high degree of national unity would be required to pass such an amendment, asked what the people interested in such a change were doing or could do to produce that sort of unity. How do you transition from, "You people are repugnant racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, fascist filth who make me scared to live in this country," to, "I need you all to support this constitutional amendment designed specifically to reduce your influence in Presidential politics?" |
I can't see the electoral college going away in my lifetime. There is no incentive for at least half the states to not support it. While demographics are always changing (TX could easily become a swing state while MI could become solidly Republican for example), I cant see it getting to a point where 75% of them are in favor of abolishment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
It is truly astonishing that Trump won, and its hard to conceive of a reality or contra-factual where he could have won the popular vote, even against Hillary Clinton.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/197576/trump-favorability-trails-presidents-elect.aspx
| Quote: |
Trump's ratings lag behind those of other presidents-elect in large part because Democrats' views of him are much worse than the opposition party's supporters' ratings have been in the past. Whereas 10% of Democrats view Trump favorably, 25% of Republicans had a positive opinion of Clinton, 31% of Democrats had a positive opinion of Bush and 35% of Republicans viewed Obama favorably.
Trump's favorable rating among independents, 39%, is also significantly worse than those of his predecessors. It is 15 points lower than Clinton's rating among independents and 31 points worse than Obama's.
And Trump's 82% favorability among his party's supporters also is lower than that for prior presidents-elect, which range from 88% for Clinton to 95% for Obama. |
He's forked. Given the imminent ethics violations and conflicts, especially since there are probably branches of the gov't emboldened by the FBI's political meddling, I see a President Pence in our not-so-distant future. |
Don't count on it just yet. Trump has been underestimated over and over. As long as he passes some of the GOP's wish list, they'll put up with him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| The current calls to abolish the electoral college are interesting. I recently spoke to someone about it, and they went into a rant about how unfair it is, and how Mr. Trump didn't really win, and so on and so forth. I told them I understood what they were saying, pointed out that in order to change it an amendment to the Constitution would be required, and given a high degree of national unity would be required to pass such an amendment, asked what the people interested in such a change were doing or could do to produce that sort of unity. How do you transition from, "You people are repugnant racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, fascist filth who make me scared to live in this country," to, "I need you all to support this constitutional amendment designed specifically to reduce your influence in Presidential politics?" |
I can't see the electoral college going away in my lifetime. There is no incentive for at least half the states to not support it. While demographics are always changing (TX could easily become a swing state while MI could become solidly Republican for example), I cant see it getting to a point where 75% of them are in favor of abolishment. |
There is no need for an amendment. There is no need for even half the states to support it. States allocate their electoral votes according to their prescribed procedure. Hence, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York and a handful of reliably blue states can all agree to allocate their electoral votes this way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
| Quote: |
| Proposed in the form of an interstate compact, the agreement would go into effect among the participating states in the compact only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes (currently at least 270) in the Electoral College. In the next presidential election after adoption by the requisite number of states, the participating states would award all of their electoral votes to presidential electors associated with the candidate who wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, the winner of the national popular vote would always win the presidency by always securing a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Until the compact's conditions are met, all states award electoral votes in their current manner. |
As of this post, states worth 165 electoral votes are locked into the Compact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 10:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| The current calls to abolish the electoral college are interesting. I recently spoke to someone about it, and they went into a rant about how unfair it is, and how Mr. Trump didn't really win, and so on and so forth. I told them I understood what they were saying, pointed out that in order to change it an amendment to the Constitution would be required, and given a high degree of national unity would be required to pass such an amendment, asked what the people interested in such a change were doing or could do to produce that sort of unity. How do you transition from, "You people are repugnant racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, fascist filth who make me scared to live in this country," to, "I need you all to support this constitutional amendment designed specifically to reduce your influence in Presidential politics?" |
I can't see the electoral college going away in my lifetime. There is no incentive for at least half the states to not support it. While demographics are always changing (TX could easily become a swing state while MI could become solidly Republican for example), I cant see it getting to a point where 75% of them are in favor of abolishment. |
There is no need for an amendment. There is no need for even half the states to support it. States allocate their electoral votes according to their prescribed procedure. Hence, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York and a handful of reliably blue states can all agree to allocate their electoral votes this way.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
| Quote: |
| Proposed in the form of an interstate compact, the agreement would go into effect among the participating states in the compact only after they collectively represent an absolute majority of votes (currently at least 270) in the Electoral College. In the next presidential election after adoption by the requisite number of states, the participating states would award all of their electoral votes to presidential electors associated with the candidate who wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. As a result, the winner of the national popular vote would always win the presidency by always securing a majority of votes in the Electoral College. Until the compact's conditions are met, all states award electoral votes in their current manner. |
As of this post, states worth 165 electoral votes are locked into the Compact. |
Right, so "reliably blue states" will go in for the compact because they think it serves their interests, and "reliably red states" will likely avoid the compact because it will work against their interests. The question, then, is what do the "swing states" prefer, being the states to decide the election in the electoral college, or automatically going along with the popular vote? My guess would be that they prefer maintaining their current influence, but we'll see.
Beyond that, such a compact won't have the force of constitutional law, so the moment a given state no longer sees benefit in participating, they can simply pull out. Perhaps even more importantly, there's real dispute as to whether or not such a compact would be constitutional, which means that if it ever actually went into effect it could probably expect a hearing in the Supreme Court. How well it might fare there would probably be based more strongly upon who gets appointed in the upcoming years than the actual constitutional merits of the compact. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 18, 2016 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well, usually how a State assigns its electors would not present a Federal question. Except that we know that precisely five justices in Bush v Gore found a Federal question in whether the deadline has passed for a recount under Florida law. Although, do not cite that case as precedent, because these five justices also said the case was a one-off. So, essentially, yeah, who ducking knows ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
