Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[mainiac]

It's hard to claim any level of altruism when people are running off with flatscreens, groceries and pretty much anything else in the zone. Doesn't real altruism require some higher level thinking, some unified purpose of mind? Can you really apply it to a mob mentality being exercised with indiscriminate violence? I don't doubt a lot of people can come together to serve an altruistic purpose. Riots doesn't seem like one of them though, except in a post-revisionary view. After the fact we can view it as altruistic on some level. At the moment, I don't think so. Except maybe in the most extreme Dark Knight-esqe moment of rationalization.

"Altruistic" punishment is a label.  I could just as accurately say:

"Not if you believe there are situations where a short term strong Pareto inefficency results in a greater strong Pareto efficiency long term."

[Wolfhunter107]

A look at white supremacists-from inside their organizations

and the little girl, as she held her mother's hand, she turned to her mom and said, "Mommy? Why does God let Jews live?

[Aqizzar]

Talking about the Confederate flag thing on Monday, I mentioned Senator Strom Thurmond, who was reelected (under three different party tickets) for forty-eight straight years until he finally died.  His son Paul Thurmond (born when Strom was 74 years old - the South did rise again) is a (Republican) member of the South Carolina state senate, and is taking the flag business very seriously:

It is time to acknowledge our past, atone for our sins, and work for a better future. ... We must take down the Confederate flag and we must take it down now. But if we stop there, we have cheated ourselves out of an opportunity to start a different conversation about healing in our state.

So yeah, there are definitely people saying more needs to happen here than make a sacrifice out of a flag just to paper over the problem.

[wierd]

Very good.  I like that.

It is especially refreshing coming from a republican.

[Bohandas]

Well played, but not quite on the same scale.

The LA riots burned huge areas of the city, sufficient that the city was declared a national disaster area.
The reported incidences in that article were highly localized around the events in question.

The same was true for Furgeson and Baltimore.

As for motivation, most of those white riots were caused by sports events going south for some of the spectators. Think about what sports actually represent, in terms of allegory.  They represent group identities, and the sporting event is a contest-- a bloodless war to prove superiority. When a team loses spectacularly, it is a major hit to the group identity of the fans, who are unable to cope with this situation. This triggers violence. 

Plus many of them are drunk, don't forget the role that plays.

[redwallzyl]

Talking about the Confederate flag thing on Monday, I mentioned Senator Strom Thurmond, who was reelected (under three different party tickets) for forty-eight straight years until he finally died.  His son Paul Thurmond (born when Strom was 74 years old - the South did rise again) is a (Republican) member of the South Carolina state senate, and is taking the flag business very seriously:

I see what you did there...

[smjjames]

In other news, Bobby Jindal joined the race.

Scott Walker is still pseudo-campaigning around, I think, the wiki says that Chris Christie is 'still exploring', however, I'm pretty sure he isn't going to run, what with 'bridgegate' and stuff. No idea what Kasich is doing.

[Aqizzar]

Talking about the Confederate flag thing on Monday, I mentioned Senator Strom Thurmond, who was reelected (under three different party tickets) for forty-eight straight years until he finally died.  His son Paul Thurmond (born when Strom was 74 years old - the South did rise again) is a (Republican) member of the South Carolina state senate, and is taking the flag business very seriously:

I see what you did there...

That was actually a Daily Show joke... from like fifteen years ago when Strom Thurmond was still alive.

In other news, Bobby Jindal joined the race.

Scott Walker is still pseudo-campaigning around, I think, the wiki says that Chris Christie is 'still exploring', however, I'm pretty sure he isn't going to run, what with 'bridgegate' and stuff. No idea what Kasich is doing.

I made the mistake of Googling to see how many declared candidates there are now and found this listing website.  Crap in a hat, look at all those people.  Mind you, most of them are "friends and family only" candidates, and there's as many under every other label, but I am pretty shocked at just how many of them at least still ring a bell to me.

[RedKing]

Y'know, I didn't even realize Walker was pulling a Jeb Bush and still undeclared.

Latest 1-month poll aggregates, courtesy of RCP:

Republican Party:

Bush -- 13.2%
Walker* -- 11.2%
Rubio -- 10.8%
Carson -- 9.5%
Huckabee -- 8.7%
Paul -- 8.0%
Cruz -- 5.8%
Trump -- 4.3%
Christie* -- 4.0%
Perry -- 3.2%
Fiorina -- 2.0%
Santorum -- 2.0%
Kasich* -- 1.7%
Graham -- 1.2%
Jindal -- 1%

*indicates this candidate is not yet formally running for President

Worth noting that the latest poll in the batch, a FOX News poll from 6/21-6/23 has Trump at 11%, riding the publicity wave from his announcement. That puts him second only to Bush with 15%. Huckabee and Santorum seem to be fading into irrelevance. Huckabee's peak was at 17% in February, and Santorum hasn't been above 5% since April of last year.

Democratic Party:

Clinton -- 62.4%
Sanders -- 12.3%
Biden* -- 12%
Webb -- 2.3%
O'Malley -- 2.0%
Chafee -- 0.9%

Sanders has gained a couple of points in the latest polls, up around 15 now. But make no mistake, unless something tectonic happens in this race, Hillary can focus more on picking and vetting a veep candidate and less on the actual primary. If she's smart, she won't start attacking specific Republican candidates until the pack thins out a bit.



Ultimately, the circus may not matter, because in head-to-head polling, Clinton is beating all potential GOP challengers at this point:

Hillary Clinton vs....

Jeb Bush: Clinton +5.5
Scott Walker: Clinton +7
Marco Rubio: Clinton +4.2
Rand Paul: Clinton +3.8
Ted Cruz: Clinton +8
Mike Huckabee: Clinton +5
Chris Christie: Clinton +10.7
Ben Carson: Clinton +10.7

No polling data available yet for Clinton vs. Trump.




Now...let's go back to the GOP race for minute. The overall polls are important, but let's not forget the importance of the first few primary races. A top-3 finish in Iowa, NH or SC can propel an also-ran into frontrunner status (i.e. Rick Santorum), and likewise failing to get a top-3 finish in any of the three races can make an otherwise credible campaign look like a paper tiger (i.e. Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, et al).

So with that in mind, here's the current poll aggregates for those state primaries:

Iowa:

Walker -- 18.3%
Rubio -- 9.8%
Huckabee -- 9.5%
Paul -- 9.3%
Bush -- 8.5%
Carson -- 8.5%
Cruz -- 6.8%
Santorum -- 4.7%
Trump -- 4.5%
Christie --4.3%
Perry - 3%
Fiorina -- 2.8%
Kasich -- 2%
Jindal -- 1%

Worth noting here that the most recent poll in this batch was from 6/8, prior to Bush, Graham, Trump and Jindal formally declaring.


New Hampshire:

Bush -- 15%
Walker -- 10.8%
Paul -- 9.6%
Rubio -- 9.4%
Trump -- 8.8%
Carson -- 5.2%
Christie -- 5.2%
Cruz -- 4.8%
Fiorina -- 4.2%
Huckabee - 4%
Perry -- 2%
Kasich -- 1.3%
Santorum -- 1.3%
Jindal -- 1%

This batch includes data as recent as 6/22, so it captures the Bush and Trump announcements. Interestingly, it also captured the Lindsey Graham announcement, but Graham polled at 0.4% (i.e. 2 of the 500 respondents) in that set.

South Carolina:

Bush -- 13.7%
Walker -- 13.3%
Graham -- 11%
Cruz -- 8.3%
Carson -- 7.7%
Huckabee -- 7%
Rubio -- 6%
Paul -- 5.7%
Christie -- 5.7%
Trump -- 2%
Santorum -- 1.5%

As with Iowa, the most recent polling data in the aggregate was from 6/8.



The big takeaway from all this for me is that Scott Walker very much has a chance to be the alternative to Jeb Bush in this race. He's currently polling in the top-3 in all three early primary states, which is impressive in itself. Even Jeb Bush can't claim that. A win in Iowa burnishes his conservative credentials (although I'd wager it has as much to do with regionalism as anything), and a followup top-3 finish in New Hampshire would allow him to claim "electability". A further top-3 finish in SC would indicate that he can do well among the party's Southern base.

Now, a lot can happen between now and then (for one, Walker has to actually declare himself a damn candidate). Trump might catch fire and suck some of the air out of the room. Walker could have a major misstep. Rubio could have a solid speech that pushes him past Walker into contention for the early states. But as it goes right now, my nonexistent money would be on Bush and Walker battling down the line till at least Super Tuesday.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

What Trump needs to do is simultaneously buy all the other candidates anonymous gay hookers. And I don't mean the classical Greek kind, I mean the kinky make-me-your-whore kind. Decent odds at least one takes the bait, and that's when the hidden camera strikes!

[RedKing]

What Trump needs to do is simultaneously buy all the other candidates anonymous gay hookers. And I don't mean the classical Greek kind, I mean the kinky make-me-your-whore kind. Decent odds at least one takes the bait, and that's when the hidden camera strikes!

I'm not sure even Donald Trump has enough money to get a gay man to try and seduce Rick Santorum.

I think the crowd will thin out rapidly after the first primary, possibly even before the primaries. Candidates that can't get big money onboard aren't going to be able to have a ground game in all the early states simultaneously. If a candidate is getting poliing numbers in January showing them in 8th place in Iowa and not even on the board in NH, it's time to hang it up. Expect Cruz, Fiorina, Santorum, Perry and probably Jindal to all be early casualties, especially if they don't make the cut for the debates. A really strong debate showing (and concomitant poll uptick) is about the only chance any of those five have.

[Frumple]

Nah, I'm pretty sure there's at least a few that would be willing to give it a go gratis. There's the occasional fellow that gets jollies from that sort of thing. Hell, there's probably some straight critters that'd give a roll at it, just to mess with Santorum. Only money needed would be to set up a proper meeting, really.

'Course, Trump being one of those rich folks, there's good odds it wouldn't even occur to him to try that venue. Something something no price tag no worth something.

[Aqizzar]

Now, a lot can happen between now and then...

Those are some really fascinating numbers, but it is still June of 2015.  In November of 2011 'national polling trends' predicted the Republican primary race was going to be a dead heat contest between Rick Perry and Herman Cain.  And that was when everyone was still gauging possible candidates by "can they beat Mitt Romney in actual voting?" which it turned out none of them could.  There is no such 'man to beat' candidate as Mitt Romney this time, at least not one clear this far out.  Right now all of that opinion polling for the fifteen significant candidates is basically just most-recognizable-name polling.

If I had to take a stab in the dark at a 'man to beat' candidate it'd be Jeb Bush just based on him having the closest connection to the national Republican infrastructure, and all the committed Republican voters I know suddenly and mysteriously deciding they don't think George Bush was anywhere near as bad a President as they swore he was seven years ago.

I don't want to stand by that opinion, because the idea of the 20-fucking-16 Presidential race being "Bush vs Clinton" is just more depressing than I can bear.

Yet that is what a lot of people I know who give very few shits about politics are starting to expect, and nothing creates a self-fulfilling prophecy like expectation.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

As I've said, there's no scenario in which I vote for Hillary Clinton. Either it's abstaining or suicide voting Republican. I'll choose to hold on to the faint hope of Sanders for now. Who knows, maybe Hillary is secretly a sexual deviant and we all learn about it come January.

[Frumple]

Well, the bright side of hillary vs. jeb would be you could probably vote for someone else comfortable in the knowledge you're not actually running the risk of changing the results.

The down side is that jeb would actually be on the ticket. Hillary's got her problems, but there's not much else I've noticed that quite embodies "lukewarm conservative incompetence" like jeb does, ruinous public policy and all. Lived through years of that guy as a state governor. Those were not good years.

Still. H v J come 2016, burn down the local polling stations, vote third party. Or sanders or somethin'. It's a plan.