I may have to vote for Trump

[Pete at Home]

I'm less interested in pushing Sanders' message than Sanders' type.  I like the idea of a candidate that actually talks straight to the people rather than treating us with condescension, dishonesty, and evasion.

[AI Wessex]

We're beginning to see the formation of a political movement based on Sanders' principles.  It's a kind of anti-Tea Party liberalism.  A group I read about in the last few days wants Sanders to drop out after the California primary, win or lose, and focus on helping build the movement with an eye toward future state-wide and national elections.

[Fenring]

http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2016/05/12/us-rebalance-threatened-with-meltdown/

An interesting comparison between the success of Trump in America with a similar phenomenon on the Philippines.

Indeed, what explains the Duterte tidal wave? The East Asia Forum intellectualized the Duterte phenomenon as the “politics of anger”. But, curiously, it is not a revolt of the poor. “It is middle class-driven. It is angry protest most acute among the modestly successful, including call centre workers, Uber drivers and overseas Filipino workers”. The magazine explains:

The angry middle class constitute an emerging counter-elite, who feel left out by the ruling oligarchy. Duterte’s emerging neo-authoritarian constituency was initially concentrated among some elites and the middle class, and has only recently gained electoral support from the poor.

[rightleft22]

I can understand the frustration (not so much the anger) but how does supporting a man like Trump address that frustration and anger?

It’s not a rational response to that anger more IMO a “cut off your nose to spite your face” kind of thing

[Fenring]

I can understand the frustration (not so much the anger) but how does supporting a man like Trump address that frustration and anger?

It’s not a rational response to that anger more IMO a “cut off your nose to spite your face” kind of thing

Nietzsche said that (paraphrase) a man would rather will nothingness than not will. In the face of feeling helpless before an imposed order by a perceived elite, it is predictable that a people would rather choose chaos rather than be subjected to an order not of their choosing. "We would rather choose *anything* rather than be denied the right to choose." Given that most party candidates feel like no choice at all the only 'choice' available, from this perspective, is anyone who dissociates him or herself from the perceived elites.

I think this goes beyond the politics of spite, as well. If you take even an average contented person and tell them that they will make the choice you've decided they should, check out how willing they are to comply even if that choice actually is in their best interest. I think the standard reaction would be to resist, and there is even a hidden meme here that we see from time to time where the stubborn person resisting has to come up with an excuse about how they're going to do it but it has to be understood that it's because they want to and not because they're being told to.

[D.W.]

Despite all the talk of Bernie not being a "real Democrat" I think many traditional Democrat voters see in him what we thought we'd get around to as a party eventually.

We vote and voted Democrat because it was the only option that got close to what we want.  Now two things have happened at once. The anti-establishment sentiment of the country is at an all time high, (or so it seems to me as someone under 40), and the Republican candidate(s) put forward all but gave the Democratic party free reign to do whatever the hell they wanted and stroll virtually unopposed to the white house.

Faced with that as well as Bernie coming forward and saying "We can have what we want right now." a lot of people had an "ah ha" moment and realized this was a big opportunity.  No more voting for the person who would prevent a backslide.  No more voting for the person who would inch closer to your stated goals.  This was an opportunity to leap forward and make some serious gains.

Now obviously the president alone doesn't change everything overnight.  The frustration and anger and "burn it all down if we don't get our way" sentiment is not just about Hillary and being a sore looser.  It's seeing that even if all the stars align and the perfect opportunity presents itself, a lot of the ideals and goals of the Democratic voters are not shared by the establishment.  They will pay it lip service when it's always on the horizon.  When it's within reach though, they scoff and make up excuses and deride people for daring to raise their arms and say, "now". 

I honestly think Hillary will be a continuation of business as usual for the Democratic party.  Given the (recent) historic choice this is "good enough".  Being told that being a loyal democrat is settling for "good enough" even when we could go beyond that smacks of betrayal and manipulation by the party of a voting block they either took for granted or never understood in the first place.

I'm not in the "Never Hillary" camp, but I have a lot of sympathy for those who are.

Also distressing is that Hillary COULD lose to Trump.  I doubt any other candidate we could have floated as a party has the unfavorable numbers to make that even remotely possible.  There is also a group that rejects the dynastic implications of another Clinton in the white house.  Two Bush terms was bad enough.  Being a carer politician is not an asset or experience today.  It's a huge liability.  (to a lot of the public)

[LetterRip]

D.W.

perfectly stated.

[AI Wessex]

I agree that was a very good post, DW. I'll pick on one small point:

It's seeing that even if all the stars align and the perfect opportunity presents itself, a lot of the ideals and goals of the Democratic voters are not shared by the establishment.

I think the "ideals and goals" are shared by both the insiders and outsiders of the Party.  What's not shared is the sense that the urgency is worth risking "inching closer" and backsliding instead. 

FWIW, I was a way left radical in my early days and worked for groups and causes that failed utterly to achieve the immediate objectives we laid out for ourselves.  But much of what are tangible products (and by-products) today of liberal thought were planted as seeds in the Democratic Party by groups like ours back in those days.  Eugene McCarthy was not a leader, but like Bernie now was our hoped-for messenger to the "Establishment".  He got crushed by the machine even though he supported the same "ideals and goals" they did.  Bernie carries pretty much the same banner today.  I prefer Hillary but hope Bernie's ideas thoroughly infect her and remind her that she was as passionate for those same ideals in her early days, too.

[Fenring]

I think the "ideals and goals" are shared by both the insiders and outsiders of the Party.

The extent to which I think this statement is inaccurate verges somewhere between "hopeful but not really true" to
"utterly ludicrous."

[AI Wessex]

That's an entirely personal observation which you are free to make.  However, don't presume to recast my experience within your opinion.  I know what what happened.

[D.W.]

I know what happened.

That's kinda my point with the "stars aligning" comment.  What happened is until this moment, what could be expected to happen.  Had anyone asked me a year ago if I thought a candidate like Bernie had a shot or that the Republicans would nominate (or be forced to nominate) someone like Trump I would have laughed at you.

You are cautious because the stakes are high.  Makes perfect sense.  In this one case, we can go "all in" AND be making the safer bet.  That is not something you pass up.

[AI Wessex]

Then go for it.  I admire the intent and will (as ever) hope for the best.

[TheDeamon]

There are a lot of good reasons to dislike Clinton but the people who would hate her enough to vote for Trump instead probably aren't sticking to demonstrable facts. They're probably already going to vote for Trump. My guess is that they also tend to belong to groups which turn out regularly for election to vote Republican. The people Trump is motivating to vote against him are groups that tend to have lower turnouts and are pivotal to the Democratic coalition.

I'm not so sure that Trump support base through the Republican Primaries were the typical Republican voters. Certainly not the ones that get overly involved in the Republican Political machine, that's for sure. It might be he pulled in a lot of independent/borderline Republicans who typically swing that way politically, or did identify as Republican until sometime in the past 12 years or so. But his success in the primaries is still something of a thing of mystery on many fronts.

The other thing you and many others are overlooking is that 2008 and 2012 was largely decided by a large number of Republican/Conservative voters staying home because McCain and Romney failed to "connect" with them. If Trump can connect with those voters, and keep the "reliable" voters voting(the ones who went Republican in 2008 and 2012), if only for the purpose of defeating Hillary, he's got a solid chance.  If he can get many of the Democrat voters from '08 and '12 to stay at home, that works too.

ANother thing being missed, is that even in the Presidential races, even in some key swing states, turnout often didn't go far beyond 60% in most precints for registered voters. So there is a rather substantial number of voters who have been largely silent, and what will get them to turn up is something of a mystery neither partty has been able to fully crack for decades. So even if the race causes many to not vote in disgust, it's just as possible it'll cause a revolving door in the form of those other voters showing up.

I think this race is far too early to call one way or the other.

[Fenring]

I know what happened.

That's kinda my point with the "stars aligning" comment.  What happened is until this moment, what could be expected to happen.

-snip-

You are cautious because the stakes are high.  Makes perfect sense.

That's the funny thing about the 'safe choice' argument. It's completely rational, on paper. I sympathize with the sentiment...in theory. But based on the actual facts my assessment is so far off from Hillary being 'safe' (even had Bernie never existed) that I don't see the theory and the reality as matching.

I see it as being like if someone has terminal cancer and they're thinking of trying a new experimental treatment, and someone tells them not to do it; that they should stick with the safe strategy of chemo even though the cancer is degenerative. But what's safe about it? At best it will slightly extend the suffering and yet offer no chance of success, while any chance at a cure ought to be seen as superior. The argument would go, I suppose, that it's better to certainly have 6 months to live than to risk shortening even that by going off chemo and trying something new. I could see the appeal of this reasoning to a desperate person grasping for life, but is this the best we can hope for?

[AI Wessex]

I think this race is far too early to call one way or the other.

This race ought to be a slam dunk for Clinton, but Trump is so mercurial that he puts teflon to shame.  He now says that banning Muslims wasn't a policy proposal, but just an idea.  He wants to raise taxes, no he doesn't, yes he does, no he doesn't.  Caitlin Jenner can use any Trump bathroom, but he's ok if states disallow her to use women's bathrooms.  Everything he says is open to denial and reconsideration.  Over the years he has called into radio shows and reporters saying good things about his friend Donald Trump, and even when the recordings of his voice are played back to him says it wasn't him.  He's a reality show on the road, Trump the Candidate.  If the GOP establishment falls in line behind him and ordinarily non-voters come out of the woodwork anything is possible, but still not likely.  I can't see how he can win any constituency other than white men.

[Wayward Son]

So even if the race causes many to not vote in disgust, it's just as possible it'll cause a revolving door in the form of those other voters showing up.

But let's not forget new voters, too.  Citizenship applications are up 14 percent from the year before, and voter registration among those new citizens is up to 80 percent, compared to 60 percent historically.

And a lot of those new voters have friends who are citizens, too.

[TheDeamon]

So even if the race causes many to not vote in disgust, it's just as possible it'll cause a revolving door in the form of those other voters showing up.

But let's not forget new voters, too.  Citizenship applications are up 14 percent from the year before, and voter registration among those new citizens is up to 80 percent, compared to 60 percent historically.

And a lot of those new voters have friends who are citizens, too.

You are aware that some of the harshest critics of illegal immigration are the legal immigrants because of all the hoops they had to jump through that the others skipped summarily?

[AI Wessex]

I can't find anything online that shows naturalized citizens opposing the new wave of naturalization applications.  I suppose they're out there, just like there are a few fundamentalist preachers who support Trump.  But if you want to find subgroups of NCs who swim against the tide, one such would have been among the majority of them that came from Europe prior to the WWII era and and within which there were groups who fought against their own enlistment to fight in that war. 

It's a cliche that there are groups of every opinion and persuasion. If they're big enough they can affect or even effect policy, but if there's even only one s/he can get on FOX News and be paraded as the tip of an iceberg or the very head of a movement.  How many NCs do you think are out there who are "the harshest critics of illegal immigration"?

And there is also this critique of Latino support for illegal immigrants:

Sometime in the last five years, the public woke up and grasped that Latino elite activists were not so much interested in illegal immigration per se, but only to the degree that the issue affected other Latinos. Were 3,000 Chinese illegally entering California per day by ship on the Northern California coast, Latino activists and politicians would probably be the first to call for enforcement of federal immigration law.

You are one of us?  Welcome!

[TheDeamon]

You're deliberately crossing wires now. Most Republicans, and conservatives in general, have only minor issues with LEGAL immigration into the U.S. Many of them would be likely to even agree that the immigration process is broken in the U.S.

Where the divide hits is the illegal immigrants, where the Republicans and Conservatives generally want to boot them out(possible exceptions for paperwork SNAFU resulting in illegal status, but that complicates the rhetoric), while Democrats play the side of near universal amnesty for all illegals.

Legal Immigrants(of the non-amnesty type) tend to be very strongly against illegal immigration in general, for a multitude of reasons. 1) They did it the legal way. 2) Depending on their ethnicity, it casts continual aspersions on them personally as to their own legality, which is a sensitivity the Democrats love to capitalize on politically all the time. Republicans start talking about going after illegals, and Democrats start making it sound like the RNC is going to be checking their green card next week.

[AI Wessex]

Crossing wires and exaggeration is a game that all can play. 

Most Republicans, and conservatives in general, have only minor issues with LEGAL immigration into the U.S. Many of them would be likely to even agree that the immigration process is broken in the U.S.

Really?  This article destroys that myth.  Here's an excerpt:

With every reason to pass comprehensive immigration reform, why are House Republicans standing in its way? Many claim that the Senate bill amounts to amnesty, a measure they suggest leaves us no better off than we are now. They stress securing the border and expelling the 11 to 12 million “illegal aliens” residing in the United States.
...
House Republicans argue that the Senate bill amounts to nothing more than a breach of the rule of law – a foundational conservative tenet.  But something beyond ideology drives House Republicans’ resistance to comprehensive immigration reform.

Let’s review the case against comprehensive immigration reform from the House GOP’s perspective.

They argue that the conservation of law and order requires the following. First, the 11 million “illegal aliens” must be expelled. To do what the Senate bill suggests, and legalize the undocumented six months later, amounts to amnesty rewarding criminal behavior. Second, legalization is accompanied by nominal preconditions. However, House Republicans complain that the fine imposed by the Senate bill, at $2K, isn’t enough. According to their calculations, it’ll only amount to $7 per month, and can be waived. Third, House Republicans also contend that the requirement to pay back taxes will be difficult to enforce. Fourth, the criterion for passing the criminal background check has a major loophole. It seems that some “illegal aliens” will be eligible for legal status even if they’ve been convicted of a felony—albeit one that was ultimately plead down.

You'll agree this isn't any kind of backup for your position about legal immigrants being opposed to illegal immigration, just more free-floating opinion:

Legal Immigrants(of the non-amnesty type) tend to be very strongly against illegal immigration in general, for a multitude of reasons. 1) They did it the legal way. 2) Depending on their ethnicity, it casts continual aspersions on them personally as to their own legality, which is a sensitivity the Democrats love to capitalize on politically all the time. Republicans start talking about going after illegals, and Democrats start making it sound like the RNC is going to be checking their green card next week.

You could make the simple argument that blacks who have never committed a crime blame other blacks who have for racism and suspicion in the US, but it would be equally wrong.

...while Democrats play the side of near universal amnesty for all illegals.

You can't back up your assertion about the "harshest critics", but how about a meaningful example of this one?  Is Obama one of those Democrats?  Hillary?  Bernie? Reid? Pelosi?  Anybody?

[TheDeamon]

It died because of amnesty. If they hadn't tried to include it, the bill would pass. This is something both sides love doing, pushing through large omnibus bills which include things the other side finds objectionable which will cause them to reject the legislation. Then upon rejection of the bill, you proceed to pillory the other side for voting against the non-objectionable parts of the bill and ignore what they objected to.

As to your other points, you're not really presenting anything to counter the claim either. Obama is a huge amnesty backer("dreamers" anyone?), so are Reid and Pelosi. Not sure on Hillary, as she didn't need to weigh in, and wasn't relevant at the time.

[AI Wessex]

That the Republicans claim the bill includes amnesty doesn't mean that it actually does.  FWIW, Reagan's Immigration Reform and Control Act (1986) actually was an amnesty bill and will fully supported by Republicans in both the House and Senate. In other words, the corollary to rejecting the bill because of the glaring objectionable feature is a way to rationalize rejecting a bill that they disingenuously claim they want to pass for a phony reason when they didn't really want the bill to pass at all.  They've done this repeatedly over the past 8 years of Obama's term in office, rejecting bill after bill that included things that they had previously supported or even had made the original proposals for because of some imagined defect.  Rather than move to eliminate the so-called defect or promise later action to address it, they refuse to consider any bill that isn't perfect, where perfect means something that Obama would be forced to accept or would veto, which would be a win-win scenario for them.

As to your other points, you're not really presenting anything to counter the claim either. Obama is a huge amnesty backer("dreamers" anyone?), so are Reid and Pelosi. Not sure on Hillary, as she didn't need to weigh in, and wasn't relevant at the time.

Attaching the word "amnesty" to an Executive Action that allows a path to permanent residency for minors who were brought into the country by their parents under a series of measured actions and conditions doesn't mean that it *is* amnesty.  In many cases the children don't speak the language and have no memory of the parents' home country.  You really want to kick them out along with the 11 million others who you'll never be able to deport?  Let's also not forget that Orrin Hatch was one of the sponsors of the original bi-partisan "dreamers" bill in 2001.

So, your dilemma is that there are about 10-12 million undocumented or otherwise illegal immigrants in the US.  Doing that could cost somewhere between $400B and $600B.  Almost all of the adults are employed, a great many of them receive a pittance for their work, and almost all of the children are in school.  If you deport them food prices will go up from farm produce at supermarkets through meals at restaurants.

What do Republicans want to do about it?  What do you want to do about it?

[Wayward Son]

So even if the race causes many to not vote in disgust, it's just as possible it'll cause a revolving door in the form of those other voters showing up.

But let's not forget new voters, too.  Citizenship applications are up 14 percent from the year before, and voter registration among those new citizens is up to 80 percent, compared to 60 percent historically.

And a lot of those new voters have friends who are citizens, too.

You are aware that some of the harshest critics of illegal immigration are the legal immigrants because of all the hoops they had to jump through that the others skipped summarily?

Interesting, and irrelevant.  It seems that every time someone talks to these new citizens and asks if they will vote,  they seem to always say it will be against Trump:

At the Denver workshop, many aspiring voters agreed on why they are naturalizing this year.

“Donald Trump never! Never!” said Minerva Guerrero Salazar, 40, who has been working for a uniform rental company since moving here from Mexico in 2002. “He has no conscience when he speaks of Latinos. And he is so rude. I don’t know what kind of education his mother gave him.”
 
Several women said they hoped to vote for Hillary Clinton, the Democratic front-runner.

Which fits the statistics:

...(I)n a poll of Latino voters on Feb. 25 by The Washington Post and Univision, the Spanish language television network, 80 percent had an unfavorable view of Mr. Trump, including 72 percent with a very unfavorable view, far more than for other Republican candidates.

Many may not like illegal immigrants getting into the country, but many know of such people, and don't like them being called "murders and rapists."  It will cost him.

[Wayward Son]

Another interesting way Trump may be bad for the Republican Party.

By eschewing data collection for this election, Trump may be escrewing the Party.

Trump’s assumption that the sole value of data is to win more votes is too narrow. His decision to limit the role of data probably won’t be the deciding factor in the 2016 election, but data organization and access are an investment in the future of the party. A presidential campaign presents a rare opportunity to cultivate the next generation of talent and collect a ton of new data on voters, and Trump’s refusal to do so means that Republicans may need to wait until 2020 or beyond to even the playing field with Democrats.

In his arrogance to show he's above politics-as-usual, he is missing a once-every-four-year opportunity to get to know the voters.  And Republicans in general will suffer for it.

[rightleft22]

How can anyone support a person with such poor character qualities.
You would think that a country like the USA would have better choices

[cherrypoptart]

Because he's the only one who has expressed any interest whatsoever in upholding and enforcing the law?

Kind of the whole job of the President as the chief executive, if I'm not mistaken.

Hillary has promised that she will immediately violate the law even more than Obama by offering executive imperial amnesty to even more illegals.

[TheDeamon]

How can anyone support a person with such poor character qualities.
You would think that a country like the USA would have better choices

Define "support" in this case.

I think most of his backers and political associates are anything but devout supporters of anything and everything he espouses. They have agendas of their own, and he's proven himself to be a political bulldozer, they're just along for the ride.

[AI Wessex]

Because he's the only one who has expressed any interest whatsoever in upholding and enforcing the law?

Kind of the whole job of the President as the chief executive, if I'm not mistaken.

Hillary has promised that she will immediately violate the law even more than Obama by offering executive imperial amnesty to even more illegals.

He wouldn't enforce the law, that's for his underlings to worry about.  He's got bigger deals to make.

...according to Paul Manafort, Trump’s strategist and campaign chairman, in an interview with HuffPost’s Howard Fineman:

“The vice presidential pick will also be part of the process of proving he’s ready for the White House, Manafort said.

“ ’He needs an experienced person to do the part of the job he doesn’t want to do. He seems himself more as the chairman of the board, than even the CEO, let alone the COO.’ “

At least Hillary breaks the laws herself.  Cherry, do you really want a cut-throat ruthless businessman running the country, somebody who sees the housing market crash and smells ... money?  That's about as far from the principles of the Constitution that you love so dearly that you can get.

[TheDeamon]

At least Hillary breaks the laws herself.  Cherry, do you really want a cut-throat ruthless businessman running the country, somebody who sees the housing market crash and smells ... money?  That's about as far from the principles of the Constitution that you love so dearly that you can get.

Like a Postmaster General who uses the establishment of new Post Office facilities as an opportunity to expand his media(printing) empire by including his printing business inside the premises of the U.S. Post Office? I seem to recall a few other members of the founding father's club doing comparable things with their own respective governmental offices. But the First Postmaster General gets major points for his activities because of how he continues to be viewed to this day.

Of course, different era, different social mores. But then, that isn't the claim you're trying to make now, is it?

[AI Wessex]

Like a Postmaster General who uses the establishment of new Post Office facilities as an opportunity to expand his media(printing) empire by including his printing business inside the premises of the U.S. Post Office? I seem to recall a few other members of the founding father's club doing comparable things with their own respective governmental offices. But the First Postmaster General gets major points for his activities because of how he continues to be viewed to this day.

I don't know who you're referring to, but how dare you criticize the Immaculate Fathers who gave birth to this nation without the benefit of any prior knowledge of how it was supposed to work.  Everything they did was either perfect, excusable or not something to talk about when you want to criticize the other party for ignoring what those sainted men did.

If the Founders thought that a corporation is a person, then why couldn't they have also thought that an amoral ruthless businessman could be the nation's CEO?  At least he won't be a dishonest politician.

[AI Wessex]

Because he's the only one who has expressed any interest whatsoever in upholding and enforcing the law?

Kind of the whole job of the President as the chief executive, if I'm not mistaken.

Hillary has promised that she will immediately violate the law even more than Obama by offering executive imperial amnesty to even more illegals.

Cherry, don't you think your President should have at least a passing relationship with reality?  He just told California that "there is no drought".  Why hadn't anyone else noticed before now?

[TheDeamon]

Cherry, don't you think your President should have at least a passing relationship with reality?  He just told California that "there is no drought".  Why hadn't anyone else noticed before now?

While it most likely is him being an idiot as per usual, it also is arguable if you want to look at it from a longer horizon. Year over year, using averages over the past 100 years, sure. But you start looking at paleo-climate studies and other such things, and things can get murky quick. Particularly when you know that historically, long periods of little to no rainfall, sometimes running into decades, is not unusual for the Southwestern US.

So yes, they are currently experiencing a prolonged period of below average rainfall(the normal definition of a drought). But no, they are not experiencing anything that seems to be particularly unusual within the context of the (paleo)climate record for the region.

[TheDeamon]

Another way to look at it is some debate within the Climate Science community regarding land use change and Tornado Activity in the United States. Many of the regional climate models show the outbreaks that have become so very common happening with current land useage. However, if you roll the clock back, and replace all those thousands of square miles of (sub)urban development, and irrigated farmland with native vegetation and natural(basically non-existent) irrigation, and those massive supercells become gentle rain showers, even when keeping the temperature data the same.

Of course, the other thing about tornado activity in the past hundred years in particular is the matter of population increases, improved technology, and a number of other various factors leading to both the increased chance of structures being in the path of a tornado, and someone either being around to witness it(and collect imagery to prove it), or for it to be detected by other instrumentation(doppler radar).

[AI Wessex]

So yes, they are currently experiencing a prolonged period of below average rainfall(the normal definition of a drought). But no, they are not experiencing anything that seems to be particularly unusual within the context of the (paleo)climate record for the region.

By that token, there isn't excessive violence, suffering or disease either.  Why isn't that reassuring?

Trump is being his usual idjit clown self, but before I take the step of finding a way in which what he says may *not* be both utterly stupid and groveling panderment, I first need to pause and consider that he will gather lost souls to his cause by these sorts of pronouncements.  It's clear that it won't help him carry California in the general election (nothing will), so what is he trying to accomplish?  I can't bring myself to imagine that there is any meaningful method to his madness.

[rightleft22]

You give Trump to much credit if you think he plans to say what he says and if he has a strategy it’s to manipulating the worst in people.

Trump lives in the now. Not the Buddhist concept of the now of mindfulness, but his now. What he thinks/does now is THE Truth. What he selectively reads or hears from 'His' 140 character limit universe is true.

If Trump becomes president can you invasion this man inspiring Americans in a positive way?

Shame on anyone who considers this man worthy of being the leader of the United States.

That’s the scary thing with madness there is no method or meaning to it.

[TheDeamon]

So yes, they are currently experiencing a prolonged period of below average rainfall(the normal definition of a drought). But no, they are not experiencing anything that seems to be particularly unusual within the context of the (paleo)climate record for the region.

By that token, there isn't excessive violence, suffering or disease either.  Why isn't that reassuring?

Because most people are uncomfortable with the idea of other people suffering. Regardless of the reason.

Trump is being his usual idjit clown self, but before I take the step of finding a way in which what he says may *not* be both utterly stupid and groveling panderment, I first need to pause and consider that he will gather lost souls to his cause by these sorts of pronouncements.  It's clear that it won't help him carry California in the general election (nothing will), so what is he trying to accomplish?  I can't bring myself to imagine that there is any meaningful method to his madness.

I do believe I have said previously that I felt Trump's campaign was intended as a publicity campaign for Mr. Trump, it wasn't intended to become a successful Presidential run, as such, he is trying to lose in just about every way possible short of actually admitting it was all about the publicity as he doesn't want to be on the receiving end of the fallout that would bring.

Or for it to get put in a different way, do you see Donald Trump turning his business empire over to a blind trust once he becomes PotUS? I think the idea terrifies him, and he doesn't want that to happen. He saw a chance to get large amounts of PR and a chance to feed his ego, and he took it. He just happened to get caught up in something he, and everyone else, can't fully wrap their heads around.

So he will continue to try to lose the race by being a bad candidate, and by being such, it's going to rally more (disenfranchised) people to his banner. Whether or not it wins him the election, that's yet to be seen, but should be good viewing from the popcorn gallery.

[AI Wessex]

I totally believe that Trump is the most unfit candidate for President in my lifetime, which is different from being the most objectionable candidate, though he's vying for a double crown here, a triple crown if you add cartoonish as a category.  OTOH --- OTOH!!!!! --- over 50,000,000 people will vote for him in November.  How is that parody of a candidate, let alone the GOP nominee with wide support from Party leaders, even possible except in a fictional universe or a profoundly effective satire.  He makes Lyndon LaRouche, Inmate No. 11593-051 and even Leonard "Live Forever" Jones seem respectable by comparison.  What it says about our nation is profoundly disturbing, that in some ways we are a sick society.

[TheDeamon]

...Which is exactly why he appeals to the disenfranchised voters. He's the perfect voting booth commentary on how screwed up our electoral process has become.

[AI Wessex]

I think rather that he is a perfect reflection of how screwed up our voting electorate is.  A ham sandwich could get 10,000,000 votes with the right financial and media backing.

[TheDeamon]

I think rather that he is a perfect reflection of how screwed up our voting electorate is.  A ham sandwich could get 10,000,000 votes with the right financial and media backing.

That too. 

But then we're discussing chicken and the egg at that point. The Electoral Process is screwed up because most of the voting electorate is screwed up. But that's not a comfortable discussion topic for most people to venture down. As that implies that the right to vote perhaps shouldn't be a nearly universal franchise as its currently implemented. (So as to get rid of all those "screwed up voters" except then who decides the criteria for someone as being "Screwed up" after all?)

[Wayward Son]

It's worse for Trump than we thought.

We know Latinos in general are against Trump.  But apparently many Latino Republicans can't stomach him, and plan not to vote at all.  He's actually polling worse among Latino Republicans than Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. 

[AI Wessex]

At this moment in time*, I can see Hillary winning the Presidency and Democrats taking control of the Senate, but not the House. 

* The standard disclaimer that I have been wrong on almost every prediction related to this election cycle so far applies...but this time I'm sure I'm right.

[Greg Davidson]

My predictions (as of 6/2/2016) as to the likelihood of various scenarios

5% Clinton - President/Senate - Democrat/House - Democrat
45% Clinton - President/Senate - Democrat/House - Republican
20% Clinton - President/Senate - Republican/House - Republican
25% Trump - President/Senate - Republican/House - Republican
4% Trump - President/Senate - Democrat/House - Republican
1% Trump - President/Senate - Democrat/House - Democrat

Note: less than 1% probability of either Clinton or Trump scenarios where House - Democrat and Senate - Republican

[Seriati]

That's interesting Greg, you have it 70/30 Clinton versus trump.  55/45 Democratic Senate and 94/6 Republican House.

Have you factored in what happens if Hillary is indicted?  She certainly should be, and I'd think the odds well past 50% she will be.  Granted, recent polls indicate that a majority of her voters will vote for her even if she's indicted, but I suspect that's a theoretical that may not play out in reality.  I read an interesting opinion piece that buys into a theory I've been hearing for a while that the indictment will be used to get the bid to Biden or Kerry, but it argued for timing.  Effectively, the indictment has to be brought after the convention makes her the nominee to avoid making Bernie the candidate.  Of course the argument, I think, underweights Clinton hubris in that it believes she'll be forced to withdrawal, and I can't see a situation where she'll voluntarily do so.

Not sure I can really dispute your numbers, but I think the Clinton/Trump race is less clear than that.  Need to look at the Senate races more closely, but a Democratic Senate is the most depressing thought I've heard yet.  Would guaranty even more autocratic creep if there's a Democratic President as they continue their party first Constitutional constraints be damned policies.

[Pete at Home]

Dems taking the house but not the Senate is the Democratic party wet dream, and as best I can tell, exactly what the party is trying for.  That way Hillary gets to stack the courts, and remains impeachment proof while she does whatever she wants, while the party can keep the poor poor, and use the Republican control of the House pursestrings to explain why income disparity has continued the skyrocketing rate that it held during the Obama admin.

[Fenring]

Not sure if there are any Redditors here, but a curious thread emerged yesterday where a "hive mind" AI named "UNU" answers questions using user opinion coupled with social psychology algorithms to track how firm the opinions are and how likely they are to shift in one direction or another. The questions posed are all yes/no questions, with only a very infrequent incidence of UNU saying it wasn't sure about the answer. Here's the AMA:

https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/4m24zv/i_am_an_artificial_hive_mind_called_unu_i/

I mention this because there were several questions about the coming election. I'll quote those questions and answers below.

justscottaustin 999 points 22 hours ago
Who will Donald Trump pick for Vice President?

UNU SAYS: "Chris Christie"
COMMENTARY: UNU has high conviction at the present time, although it's still very early to make such a pick. You can see the replay of UNU making this decision here: http://go.unu.ai/r/41409

CaftanAmerica 2321 points 21 hours ago
What are the odds of campaign finance reform during a Clinton presidency (or any upcoming presidency for that matter)?

UNU SAYS: 0% CHANCE
COMMENTARY: UNU has strong conviction on this point, expressing little faith that real campaign finance reform will occur. You can see a replay of UNU answering this question here: http://go.unu.ai/r/41776

Wireman29 1334 points 21 hours ago
How similar would Trump be to Ronald Reagan if he won the presidency?

UNU SAYS: "NOT SIMILAR AT ALL"
COMMENTARY: UNU expressed high conviction, showing 90% certainty in his answer. You can see a replay of this here: http://go.unu.ai/r/41504

Wowseancody 1602 points 21 hours ago
Hi UNU! Do you trust Hillary Clinton?

UNU SAYS: "NO"
COMMENTARY: The Hive Mind had surprisingly strong conviction on this point, with 95% certainty. You can see a replay of UNU answering this question here: http://go.unu.ai/r/41636

Lordvaughn92 1184 points 21 hours ago
In the unlikely event of a three person race between Trump, Clinton, and Sanders who would win?

UNU says: "SANDERS" 81%
Comment: UNU was quite confident in this result, achieving 100% brainpower which indicates a decisive answer.
Replay and analysis available here: http://go.unu.ai/r/41821

isitARTyet 582 points 21 hours ago
If elected will Hillary Clinton continue to oppose the TPP?

UNU SAYS: I doubt it
You can see a replay here: http://go.unu.ai/r/41797

aint_that_a_bitch_ 761 points 21 hours ago
Hi UNU. I realize that according to you Bernie Sanders doesn't have a chance at the presidency. My question is, do you think that we would see a significant reform in U.S. Politics if he were, or would he be unable to pass most of his proposals due to congress vetoing?

UNU SAYS: " YES, WE WOULD SEE A SIGNIFICANT REFORM IN US POLITICS."
COMMENTARY: UNU had high conviction (80%) on this answer. You can see a replay of UNU answering this question here: http://go.unu.ai/r/41658

digiorno 985 points 22 hours ago
Has election fraud taken place during the 2016 Democratic National Committee (DNC) primary race?

UNU SAYS: "I Believe"
COMMENTARY: UNU feels mildly confident that Election Fraud has taken place. This is not high confidence, but it's still an interesting result. You can see a replay of UNU making this decision here: http://go.unu.ai/r/41468

juicepants 545 points 21 hours ago
Will Democrats take control of the house and senate?

UNU SAYS: "YES"
You can see a replay of this answer here: http://go.unu.ai/r/41573

xbalo 538 points 21 hours ago
Would the democrats be better off with Bernie or Hillary to defeat Trump?

UNU SAYS: "BERNIE"
COMMENTARY: UNU had 99% conviction in this answer. You can see a replay of UNU answering this here: "http://go.unu.ai/r/41628"

mytwowords 1157 points 22 hours ago
IF Bernie wins the nomination, how would he do against Trump?

UNU SAYS: "WIN'S BIG"
COMMENTARY: UNU expressed strong conviction that Bernie Sanders would win big against TRUMP. You can see a replay of UNU answering this question here: http://go.unu.ai/r/41478

mcgillycuddy412 700 points 22 hours ago
Will Hillary Clinton be indicted?

UNU SAYS: "I doubt it'
COMMENTARY: UNU expressed mild confidence in this answer, but not absolute certainty. You can see a replay of this question being answered here: http://go.unu.ai/r/41394

bomi3ster 2699 points 21 hours ago
Is Hillary Clinton crooked?

UNU SAYS: "Yes"
COMMENTARY: UNU expressed high conviction on this point, reaching a level of certainty of 87%. You can see a replay of UNU reaching this answer here: http://go.unu.ai/r/41496

MootRobot 35 points 21 hours ago
Hi UNU - If Bernie Sanders wins California, could he win the presidency?

UNU SAYS: "I DOUBT IT"
You can see a replay of UNU answering this question here: http://go.unu.ai/r/41880

[D.W.]

Is UNU an ongoing live experiment?  Can people still poke it with a stick?  Or was this a one off event where they let it out of it's cage with minders on by to keep it well behaved? 

Kinda answered my own question.  I'm curious how much AI is behind this as opposed to it just being a poll of participants.  Will have to read up more on it.

[Fenring]

Is UNU an ongoing live experiment?  Can people still poke it with a stick?  Or was this a one off event where they let it out of it's cage with minders on by to keep it well behaved? 

Kinda answered my own question.  I'm curious how much AI is behind this as opposed to it just being a poll of participants.  Will have to read up more on it.

blsmothermon 1871 points 21 hours ago
Can we get a subreddit for UNU that can be a perpetual AMA Q&A like this or is the swarm insufficiently autonomous for something like that?

It exists: https://www.reddit.com/r/UNU/

gustogus 1449 points 22 hours ago
How is this different from a real time poll?

http://www.engadget.com/2016/06/01/ai-that-picked-oscar-winners-could-predict-the-next-president/
Since the system relies entirely on human knowledge and even instinct, it's easy to think of it as a kind of crowdsourcing platform for opinions and intelligence. But according to Rosenberg, UNU doesn't work like a poll or a survey that finds the average of the opinions in a group. Instead, it creates an artificial swarm that amplifies a group's intelligence to create its own. For instance, when predicting the Derby winners, the group picked the first four horses accurately to win $11,000 in a grand bet called Superfecta. But individually, when asked to make the same predictions, none of the participants had more than one winning horse.

[LetterRip]

UNU is interesting but the problem is that it doesn't seem to accurately account for preference bias or distribution bias.  The Derby won't have a strong bias because no one is deeply invested in which horse wins - people are heavily invested in their individual candidate, and there are generally more Sanders supporters in Reddit and other forums due to age distribution of internet users (which skew younger).

[Fenring]

UNU is interesting but the problem is that it doesn't seem to accurately account for preference bias or distribution bias.  The Derby won't have a strong bias because no one is deeply invested in which horse wins - people are heavily invested in their individual candidate, and there are generally more Sanders supporters in Reddit and other forums due to age distribution of internet users (which skew younger).

Agreed. However preference bias does not necessarily apply to all types of questions. For instance UNU believes Hillary will win the election, which - if as you say the opinions come from a skewed amount of Bernie supporters - indicates that their assessment is not always the same as their preference. I was also motivated to post some of the answers because of Greg's Congress predictions, which UNU made an assessment about as well. UNU seems to disagree with Greg about who will win in the senate, which arguably could be liberal preference bias among the responders.