US Elections 2016 Part II: The Debates & General Election

[Brother Coa]

Well guys, it seems that victor of these elections is already been decided.

Nobody knows for certain who will win on Nov. 8 - but one man is pretty sure: Professor Allan Lichtman, who's correctly predicted every presidential election since 1984.

And this year, he says, Donald Trump is the favorite to win.

The keys, which are explained in depth in Lichtman's book "Predicting the Next President: The Keys to the White House 2016" are:

1. Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.

2. Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.

3. Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.

4. Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.

5. Short-term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.

6. Long-term economy: Real per-capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.

7. Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.

8. Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.

9. Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.

10 Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.

11. Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.

12. Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.

13. Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

LICHTMAN: Based on the 13 keys, it would predict a Donald Trump victory. Remember, six keys and you're out, and right now the Democrats are out - for sure - five keys.

Key 1 is the party mandate - how well they did in the midterms. They got crushed.

Key number 3 is, the sitting president is not running.

Key number 7, no major policy change in Obama's second term like the Affordable Care Act.

Key number 11, no major smashing foreign policy success.

And Key number 12, Hillary Clinton is not a Franklin Roosevelt.

One more key and the Democrats are down, and we have the Gary Johnson Key. One of my Keys would be that the party in power gets a "false" if a third-party candidate is anticipated to get 5 percent of the vote or more. In his highest polling, Gary Johnson is at about 12 to 14 percent. My rule is that you cut it in half. That would mean that he gets six to seven, and that would be the sixth and final key against the Democrats.

So very, very narrowly, the keys point to a Trump victory. But I would say, more to the point, they point to a generic Republican victory, because I believe that given the unprecedented nature of the Trump candidacy and Trump himself, he could defy all odds and lose even though the verdict of history is in his favor. So this would also suggest, you know, the possibility this election could go either way. Nobody should be complacent, no matter who you're for, you gotta get out and vote.

And, of course, as I have said for over 30 years, predictions are not endorsements. My prediction is based off a scientific system. It does not necessarily represent, in any way, shape or form, an Allan Lichtman or American University endorsement of any candidate. And of course, as a successful forecaster, I've predicted in almost equal measure both Republican and Democratic victories.

So yeah, Clinton attacking him on the debate only gave Trump more points - just like during the rest of the elections.

[Irenicus]

Cute. Except:

1) Professor Lichtman absolutely hates Trump's guts, and openly admits his being a piece of shit could mean his model doesn't work any more. He is quoted explicitly, here.

2) His model is not a valid statistical model. He is working from a small sample size from every angle, with subjective judgments on each "true/false" hit at best.

3) He is a historian, not a statistician. Historians -- and let me say this as a formal student of History -- do not make absolute predictions. Ever. We make hypotheses, theories, and capture our predictions with likely, maybe, the nuances are XYZ, and so on. Professor Lichtman was very clever in couching his language in very narrow, hedged terms.

4) He's selling a book.

Spin some more.

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

LMAO you're spinning so hard. Face it darling your God Emperor revealed his true, ugly, pitiful self for one hundred million people to see.

So much so Hillary Clinton even had the time to take off the candidate mode for a moment to do the presidential thing when she made that aside on the NATO and nuclear "debate."


The full transcript.

There was one Madame President on stage tonight. Crooked? Liar? Fucking hell there was one bitching liar up there -- literally caught lying multiple times against real-time fact-checking, on record -- and it isn't the scary woman in red.

So many cognitive dissonance tells, I don't even know where to begin.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

So many cognitive dissonance tells, I don't even know where to begin.

I know, what are you people reading? Breitbart? Stormfront? r/incel? The verdict across the media landscape was near-unanimous, and even the likes of Fox News had shell shock before they started the counterspin.

And if you actually watched the debate live, I'm sure you absolutely didn't miss the audience laughing unprompted at Mr. Trump's remarkable rant about his superior temperament, did you?

[risingstar3110]

I think (IMO) Frank Luntz has the fairest indicator of Trump and Hillary performance on tonight debate, and you can see how each section fair with each candidate own base, opponent base and independence.

Summary (points scored out of 100 based on favourability):

• the beginning with economy and trade and everytime it is brought up. Trump actually do very well against independence (average 65) much better than Hillary (average 45).
• Trump excuses over his tax return was poor across the board (30~ish), but it shot to 60 for undecided and 75 for Republican when he tell Hillary to release her email in return of his tax return
• Hillary attacks on him not paying his workers earn high favourability of undecided (70)
• Hillary earn high point for her answers to racial issues (70 for undecided and Democrats), while Trump is 55 for undecided and 70 for Republican (the Law and order speech)
• Weird thing, her offer to come on a plan to counter racial issue earned her 90 for Democrats, but only 65 for undecided.
• Trump's answer for the birther tanked the worst, got only 30 for his base and 40 for undecided, probably for different reason
• Funny thing, when Hillary firstly said "he want to put the birther situation to rest", Republican was very favorable of that (75), but her following "but it can't dismissed it easy", got her down to 50. Democrats increase from 50 to 65 through
• Hillary ISIS plan scored 70 for both Democrats and Republican, but undecided give her 55
• Trump attack on Hillary stamina earned only 40 for his base and undecided, her answer earned high for Democrats (70) but undecided stay at 40
• Their answer on how the loser will support the winner after election got 55 overall

Overall, answers for both birther and tax return were big problems for Trump when it comes to undecided (<40). Hillary earned real high on undecided for her answer on racial issues (70), but Trump wasn't so bad either (55). Trump however win on trade and economy (65 to Hillary's 45).

If Trump follow this however, he may bring the email issue up a lots in next debate, as it score very high amongst undecided and Republican (60-75) despite he barely mentioned it

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

I know, what are you people reading? Breitbart? Stormfront? r/incel? The verdict across the media landscape was near-unanimous, and even the likes of Fox News had shell shock before they started the counterspin.

And if you actually watched the debate live, I'm sure you absolutely didn't miss the audience laughing unprompted at Mr. Trump's remarkable rant about his superior temperament, did you?

I don't even have to say anything at all and the cognitive dissonance just keeps coming.

And since when has the media who said things like "Trump will not run... Trump will drop out... Trump's ceiling is 30%... 35%... 40%... 45%... 50%!!! For real this time!" suddenly regained their credibility? They have been incompetent for the whole election cycle. I still remember how the pundits were assured that the "lines between the states" debate would hurt Trump, or that Trump has pretty much lost the nomination after losing the Wisconsin primary... or how the election was already wrapped up just a few weeks ago... Again and again Trump defied those opinions of the "experts".

Instead a certain cartoonist who predicted a Trump landslide has been more accurate until now than anyone else.

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

I think (IMO) Frank Luntz has the fairest indicator of Trump and Hillary performance on tonight debate, and you can see how each section fair with each candidate own base, opponent base and independence.

Summary (points scored out of 100 based on favourability):

• the beginning with economy and trade. Trump actually do very well against independence (average 65) much better than Hillary (average 45).
• Trump excuses over his tax return was poor across the board (30~ish), but it shot to 60 for undecided and 75 for Republican when he tell Hillary to release her email in return of his tax return
• Hillary attacks on him not paying his workers earn high favourability of undecided (70)
• Hillary earn high point for her answers to racial issues (70 for undecided and Democrats), while Trump is 55 for undecided and 70 for Republican (the Law and order speech)
• Weird thing, her offer to come on a plan to counter racial issue earned her 90 for Democrats, but only 65 for undecided.
• Trump's answer for the birther tanked the worst, got only 30 for his base and 40 for undecided, probably for different reason
• Funny thing, when Hillary firstly said "he want to put the birther situation to rest", Republican was very favorable of that (75), but her following "but it can't dismissed it easy", got her down to 50. Democrats increase from 50 to 65 through
• Hillary ISIS plan scored 70 for both Democrats and Republican, but undecided give her 55
• Trump attack on Hillary stamina earned only 40 for his base and undecided, her answer earned high for Democrats (70) but undecided stay at 40
• Their answer on how the loser will support the winner after election got 55 overall

Overall, answers for both birther and tax return were big issue for Trump when it comes to undecided (<40). Hillary earned real high on undecided for her answer on racial issues (70), but Trump wasn't so bad either (55). Trump however win on trade and economy (65 to Hillary's 45).

If Trump follow this however, he may bring the email issue up a lots in next debate, as it score very high amongst undecided and Republican (60-75) despite he barely mentioned it

Clinton has pretty much run out of ammo. Any success she has here will rebound in the next debate because she won't be able to attack Trump without repeating a talking point. And she doesn't seem to talk very much about herself and her policies, other than the 2 minute segment each candidate has, at least nothing that people really remember afterwards.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by risingstar3110

There is a reason why we all hate vultures. But honestly, the housing crisis would have gotten even worse if those with money (like Trump in that case)do not swoop in to buy them.

They literally are the only one that have prevented the price of houses during that time to worth more than the piles of bricks. And their pursue of profits (buy low, try to sell high) is the main reason the house price recovers somewhat.

I do hate them through, but mostly because i kinda hate capitalism (kinda). And that was a shining example of how capitalism works

Is this actually true? I haven't followed the whole debacle in every avenue but that seems to me somewhat far fetched.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

What about voters who think that Trump is "literally Hitler" and openly say that they "would not mind it" that maybe someone would assassinate Trump. Do you think Clinton would publicly disavow such people and tell them that she doesn't want their vote? I don't think so.

You mean like the time when Trump suggested the second amendment people could deal with Hillary?

Originally Posted by GreyZone

But it IS bad if the person you are running against is a candidate who constantly reminds people of the "all talk; no action politicians". The so-called "intellectualism" has become re-branded to "appearing seemingly intelligent and professional, but actually being a completely corrupt and incompetent self-serving elitist". It has become a symbol of arrogance and contempt. Your words are perfectly reflecting this brand. If you assume "I am smart, everyone on the opposing team is dumb", then you are showing cognitive dissonance. Your confirmation bias that made you think you had "figured out how the world works" got confronted by new events that contradict this world-view. Because you don't get what is going on, you just assume those on the opposing teams must be idiots. Actually a little bit empathy would have solved it before it became a problem, but just assuming everyone who disagrees is stupid is the "easy way".

When being well prepared and being able to give intelligent answers to questions in a debate somehow means you either a) cheated by getting the answers beforehand or b) are a symbol of arrogance and contempt.

Originally Posted by Brother Coa

But despite this unbalanced favoritism in media Trump managed to get well and make it a tie. Somehow...

The debate certainly didn't end in a tie.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

He was able to regain his composure multiple times (very important for him to show that) and a few times (early on) Clinton was hesitating a bit how to answer, in clear contrast to Trump who always started off immidietly and decisively. That was pretty good optics for the person who has to make the minute decisions.

He may have started off immediately but what he said wasn't exactly reflecting reality. I'd rather have someone who might hesitate slightly but knows what they're talking about.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

I don't even have to say anything at all and the cognitive dissonance just keeps coming.

Yes. Spin some more.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

Clinton has pretty much run out of ammo. Any success she has here will rebound in the next debate because she won't be able to attack Trump without repeating a talking point. And she doesn't seem to talk very much about herself and her policies, other than the 2 minute segment each candidate has, at least nothing that people really remember afterwards.

Well it's only true, if she can't find a better way to repeat those points, or Trump can re-strategise his preparation to answer those better next time.

But is understandable as her poll number certainly does not go well recently, so she has to hit with everything she got asap. Otherwise the 2nd debate would have been too late.

The debate result is fairly close through, and I think each campaign response on the debate could have as much impact on the poll as the debate itself

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Is this actually true? I haven't followed the whole debacle in every avenue but that seems to me somewhat far fetched.

On the housing market? Yeah, it's the truth.

Think "Capitalism the love story" touched on it, but the only one who bought in lots of property during the crash and prevented it from total collapse were properties vultures (the type Trump intended to do and could profit from). Just as their name. They were buying foreclosure properties from banks and maintain their values for reselling later. Otherwise the price would have dropped to even worse, and would lead to even higher mortgage truancy.

That's how the system works unfortunately ...

[GreyZone]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

You mean like the time when Trump suggested the second amendment people could deal with Hillary?

I asssume when you read about Greenpeace "dealing with politicians", you imagine they do so by planting a few man-eating magic-trees? I mean if you are implying that activists always "deal with politicians" by using the things that they represent, then...

you get it?

You have to explain why you assume he implied the use of weapons instead of simply their powerful lobby. Saying something like "it's obvious, I don't need to explain it" doesn't cut it here.

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

When being well prepared and being able to give intelligent answers to questions in a debate somehow means you either a) cheated by getting the answers beforehand or b) are a symbol of arrogance and contempt.

Perhaps in your imagination I said that. But I was talking about the so-called "intellectualism". Giving "intelligent answers" (whatever that even means in a debate context) has nothing to do with it. And I am sure the opinions are split on what is considered an "intelligent answer" and what is not.

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

He may have started off immediately but what he said wasn't exactly reflecting reality. I'd rather have someone who might hesitate slightly but knows what they're talking about.

You shouldn't project your world views on the entire audience. Remember how the pundits time and time again tried to do that and falsely claimed that gaffe X would be the end of Trump's campaign? You want to repeat that now? At some point Nate Silver himself even had a breakdown and started blaming the voters for not conforming to his models when Trump was winning the nomination.

Originally Posted by Irenicus

Yes. Spin some more.

The cognitive dissonance is different this time. Not unexpected though. I'd be more surprised if you had an actual argument to defend the pundits.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

Perhaps in your imagination I said that. But I was talking about the so-called "intellectualism". Giving "intelligent answers" (whatever that even means in a debate context) has nothing to do with it. And I am sure the opinions are split on what is considered an "intelligent answer" and what is not.

There is no split opinion. You either know what you are talking about or you are not. In a debate context, an intelligent answer is an answer that is factually accurate and supported with clear explanations.

[risingstar3110]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

There is no split opinion. You either know what you are talking about or you are not. In a debate context, an intelligent answer is an answer that is factually accurate and supported with clear explanations.

But you are assuming that an intelligent answer is even important in a debate. In fact a "factually accurate and supported with clear explanations" often worth less than a remarkable catchphrase or attacks on opponent.

In short it won't be smart to present intelligent point in a debate. Yeah, I know the irony and how fucked-up it is

Make sense through. Because otherwise the senate and White House would have filled with professors from various fields, who actually know the shit that they spouted. For example, Hillary and Trump answer for racial problems in America probably would receive D- if it was used in a social science class. And I am being generous

[Irenicus]

Oh, fine. I'll play with you tonight. I've decided that I have some time to actually care and rescue this shithole of a thread for a bit. I have no expectations that I can convince you of anything, but I would be very displeased to see your lies and insinuations unchallenged. See, I really want my country back from the fact-less people, the racists, the liars.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

Perhaps in your imagination I said that. But I was talking about the so-called "intellectualism". Giving "intelligent answers" (whatever that even means in a debate context) has nothing to do with it. And I am sure the opinions are split on what is considered an "intelligent answer" and what is not.

Your buzzword does not excuse you from explaining your actual meaning. Define what you're talking about with the "intellectualism" buzzword, eh m8?

Also, I must applaud you again for the amazing spin. You very much said here that there's literally no way to define what is an intelligent answer is in a debate, promptly allowing absolute free-standing opinions without justifications. Remarkable.

Having said so, allow me to demonstrate for the audience's curiosity by comparing two answers on the same subject as provided by Secretary Clinton and Mr. Trump tonight; to wit, on the last and by far the easiest of all questions:

HOLT: One of you will not win this election, so many [should be "my" -- transcript mistake] final question to you tonight: are you willing to accept the outcome as the will of the voters?

CLINTON: Well, I support our democracy. And sometimes you win. Sometimes you lose. But I certainly will support the outcome of this election. And I know Donald's trying very hard to plant doubts about it, but I hope the people out there understand: This election’s really up to you. It's not about us so much as it is about you and your families and the kind of country and future you want. So I sure hope you will get out and vote as though your future depended on it because it does.

As you can see, Secretary Clinton had the sense to offer a standard answer about how democracy is important, accepting the outcome, please vote, it's important, etc. Nothing wrong, and nothing spectacular.

HOLT: Mr. Trump, very quickly, same question: Will you accept the outcome as the will of the voters?

TRUMP: I want to make America great again. We are a nation that is seriously troubled. We’re losing our jobs, people are pouring into our country.

The other day we were deporting 800 people. And perhaps they pressed the wrong button, they press the wrong button, or perhaps worse than that, it was corruption. But These people that we were going to deport for good reason ended up becoming citizens. Ended up becoming citizens, and it was 800, and now it turns out, it might be 1800, and they don't even know.

HOLT: Will you accept the outcome of the election?

TRUMP: I want to make America great again. I’m going to be able to do it, I don’t think Hillary will. The answer is, If she wins, I will absolutely support her.

Note how Mr. Holt had to ask Mr. Trump twice to get the same affirmation? Rather than answering the question upfront, he first stated his slogan, attempted to continue his talking point about evil immigrants and jobs, deportation, and so on. Mr Holt pressed him -- asking for a basic answer of democratic affirmation Mr. Trump apparently has no care to give -- and he restates the slogan again, stubbornly, before being forced to concede an answer in conventional terms.

The disgusting mainstream media conventional wisdom that democratic power transitions should be legitimate and peaceful.

Sadly that was arguably one of the least representative answers, though it is the shortest. He was rambling far more throughout. Should I post the entire numbing section of Mr. Trump's angry rant about the Iraq War, namely that he did not support it [hint: he did, provably, caught on tape], and then concluded that angry rant with an attempt to claim that he had the superior temperament? It may be the first time, and certainly one of the very few times if it is not the case, that a presidential candidate in a formal debate stage drew uncontrolled laughter against themselves unprompted by their opponent (and against decorum).

Here is a full transcript of the debate.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

At some point Nate Silver himself even had a breakdown and started blaming the voters for not conforming to his models when Trump was winning the nomination.

Stop lying. It is quite well documented that Five Thirty-Eight's models did not evaluate Donald Trump's chances inaccurately -- they remained largely accurate throughout, especially in their use as a tool to aggregate wider poll data into representative information (which means the tools are only as good as the data, ultimately) -- but rather that Nate Silver, in his capacity as a political pundit (as opposed to his capacity as a statistician) questioned the conclusion of Five Thirty-Eight's own models given his personal evaluation of Mr. Trump's shockingly poor personal character and, accordingly, his appeal to Republican primary voters.

He has since admitted to the mistake, as befits a human being with more capacity for self-reflection than Mr. Trump. Clearly he underestimated the racism, hatred, and ignorance of segments of the American voting public.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

The cognitive dissonance is different this time. Not unexpected though. I'd be more surprised if you had an actual argument to defend the pundits.

From what exactly, hmm?

[frivolity]

My whole office (2 liberals and 2 conservatives) was streaming the debate today while we worked

Our opinions are somewhat split:
Me: Trump won the argument, Hillary won the debate (i.e: I agree more with Trump's arguments than Hillary's, but I think Hillary probably gained more votes);
Conservative 2: Trump won the argument, third party candidates won the debate;
Liberal 1: Hillary won the argument, Hillary won the debate; and
Liberal 2: Tied on argument, tied on debate.

It's telling that none of us felt that Trump won the debate, not even the 2 conservatives.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

LMAO you're spinning so hard. Face it darling your God Emperor revealed his true, ugly, pitiful self for one hundred million people to see.

So much so Hillary Clinton even had the time to take off the candidate mode for a moment to do the presidential thing when she made that aside on the NATO and nuclear "debate."


The full transcript.

There was one Madame President on stage tonight. Crooked? Liar? Fucking hell there was one bitching liar up there -- literally caught lying multiple times against real-time fact-checking, on record -- and it isn't the scary woman in red.

Can I speak as a French who have no idea of your expectations for foreign and domestic policies? I have had the feeling of watching a reverse version of French 2007 Presidency debate. Back then, everyone knew about Sarkozy's short temper and populism. But everyone objectively saw that he managed to retain a Presidential attitude while his adversary, Segolene Royal, lost her shit. That was the decisive moment for Nicolas who won it. French wanted a President, and Nicolas showed he was cut for it, no matter how divisive and polarizing he showed himself to be later.

Clinton was the Sarkozy of this debate.

[Irenicus]

I appreciate the insight. I heard/seen some news of the Sarkozy-Royale presidential election a long time ago, but did not know about the debate and its impact. Out of curiosity, is a presidential debate traditionally an important element of France's presidential elections? What are the cultural nuances and/or media importance of the event, compared to American presidential debates?

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by GreyZone

I asssume when you read about Greenpeace "dealing with politicians", you imagine they do so by planting a few man-eating magic-trees? I mean if you are implying that activists always "deal with politicians" by using the things that they represent, then...

you get it?

You have to explain why you assume he implied the use of weapons instead of simply their powerful lobby. Saying something like "it's obvious, I don't need to explain it" doesn't cut it here.

Trump has a long history of saying dubious things. From knowing 'many people' to being able to drop Mitt Romney on his knees for endorsement there are all kinds of statements that he left up to others to interpret them and more often than not he doesn't clarify afterwards. This statement was very suggestive at the time he made it and even if it was just a joke gone bad it would still be a terrible joke.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

Perhaps in your imagination I said that. But I was talking about the so-called "intellectualism". Giving "intelligent answers" (whatever that even means in a debate context) has nothing to do with it. And I am sure the opinions are split on what is considered an "intelligent answer" and what is not.

The sounding prepared and measured is part of that intellectualism. Hillary doesn't just appear intelligent, she actually is. She's corrupt but not incompetent as proven by her political career, which if you'll allow me to remark, Donald Trump has none of. The definition of 'intelligent' answers isn't exactly rocket science either. It's something that takes into account the situation with its relevant variables while trying to provide a realistic solution. On that front Hillary is far and above Trump.

Originally Posted by GreyZone

You shouldn't project your world views on the entire audience. Remember how the pundits time and time again tried to do that and falsely claimed that gaffe X would be the end of Trump's campaign? You want to repeat that now? At some point Nate Silver himself even had a breakdown and started blaming the voters for not conforming to his models when Trump was winning the nomination.

I am speaking specifically about this debate. What the pundits did or did not is a different matter.

[Sheba]

Originally Posted by Irenicus

I appreciate the insight. I heard/seen some news of the Sarkozy-Royale presidential election a long time ago, but did not know about the debate and its impact. Out of curiosity, is a presidential debate traditionally an important element of France's presidential elections? What are the cultural nuances and/or media importance of the event, compared to American presidential debates?

Those debates were shown to be décisive for Mitterand on his second run in 1981, Chirac in 1995 and Sarkozy in 2007. French expect their candidates to show up in their best. So its very important for us.

[Irenicus]

Originally Posted by Sheba

Those debates were shown to be décisive for Mitterand on his second run in 1981, Chirac in 1995 and Sarkozy in 2007. French expect their candidates to show up in their best. So its very important for us.

Fascinating. I assume it allows for a stronger influence of personal charisma and gaffes. It's not appropriate for this thread, but I'm curious how the 2017 election will play out. Please say Marine Le Pen is not a frontrunner potential...

Anyway. Sidetrack.