Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Shooter585

2016 USA Presidential Election

Recommended Posts

Fiorina is second in some polls now, if anyone cares.

 

Media attention suuuure helps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Scott Walker has dropped out.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/09/21/scott_walker_dropping_out_of_gop_race_128157.html

 

Where will all the Koch money go now!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience, being a medical doctor only means you're goal oriented, not that you're smart, rational, or anything positive. Being an MD doesn't differentiate you from being a politician.

 

Carson, though a strong willed individual, exemplifies this for me.

I disagree. If you polled doctors and asked if vaccines cause autism, you'd get a no answer somewhere in the upper 90%. Carson is either one of the few who believes vaccines (may?) cause autism or he's playing to his audience.

I'm not sure lilshu is referring to vaccines and autism specifically--I think we all know that the amount of doctors who believe that vaccines cause autism is incalculably low--but that Ben Carson isn't necessarily intelligent in general because he's a doctor, which is exemplified by his political endeavors.

Yeah- I've mentored a handful of folks who are about to get their MD's. Dumb as a sack of bricks but very dedicated to their careers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience, being a medical doctor only means you're goal oriented, not that you're smart, rational, or anything positive. Being an MD doesn't differentiate you from being a politician.

 

Carson, though a strong willed individual, exemplifies this for me.

I disagree. If you polled doctors and asked if vaccines cause autism, you'd get a no answer somewhere in the upper 90%. Carson is either one of the few who believes vaccines (may?) cause autism or he's playing to his audience.

I'm not sure lilshu is referring to vaccines and autism specifically--I think we all know that the amount of doctors who believe that vaccines cause autism is incalculably low--but that Ben Carson isn't necessarily intelligent in general because he's a doctor, which is exemplified by his political endeavors.

Yeah- I've mentored a handful of folks who are about to get their MD's. Dumb as a sack of bricks but very dedicated to their careers.

You're admitting to a small sample size in (what I'm assuming) is a relatively narrow field compared to everything in life. You can find dumb people in any profession.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my experience, being a medical doctor only means you're goal oriented, not that you're smart, rational, or anything positive. Being an MD doesn't differentiate you from being a politician.

 

Carson, though a strong willed individual, exemplifies this for me.

I disagree. If you polled doctors and asked if vaccines cause autism, you'd get a no answer somewhere in the upper 90%. Carson is either one of the few who believes vaccines (may?) cause autism or he's playing to his audience.

I'm not sure lilshu is referring to vaccines and autism specifically--I think we all know that the amount of doctors who believe that vaccines cause autism is incalculably low--but that Ben Carson isn't necessarily intelligent in general because he's a doctor, which is exemplified by his political endeavors.

Yeah- I've mentored a handful of folks who are about to get their MD's. Dumb as a sack of bricks but very dedicated to their careers.

You're admitting to a small sample size in (what I'm assuming) is a relatively narrow field compared to everything in life. You can find dumb people in any profession.

I think his point is that with the amount of education it takes to advance far enough to get a Master's Degree, there should not be many dumb people. My experiences, while also a small sample size, is very similar to Shu's. Just because you are dedicated and hard-working, does not mean you are very smart. Higher education is no exception to that, but the difference is, in most areas of higher education, you should be able to expect better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, it's not only MDs but other Master degrees. Name a profession requires you to be smart in various fields.

 

Also, it's worth noting that MDs who seek out tutoring in a certain field are more likely to have difficulty with that certain field and more likely to appear stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't lilshu a chemist? Chemistry is pretty important for medicine so if he tutored MDs in that, I can see why he'd say that. It's one thing to have a doctor who sucks at chem, and completely another to have one who needs help with history.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Right, it's not only MDs but other Master degrees. Name a profession requires you to be smart in various fields.

 

Also, it's worth noting that MDs who seek out tutoring in a certain field are more likely to have difficulty with that certain field and more likely to appear stupid.

I can't think of any advanced degree that requires innate intellect, which is why I don't think it should be a valid metric.

 

I haven't ever been a tutor btw. I've just taught/trained a spread (a hundred or so) of premed folks over the past years who were unfortunate enough to have me assigning their grades. :evil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Premed, with an emphasis on pre :P.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, it's not only MDs but other Master degrees. Name a profession requires you to be smart in various fields.

Business.

 

I don't mean running a mom-and-pop shop, I mean running a major corporation. You have to know and understand politics, economics, business, foreign relations, foreign cultures, and etiquette at a bare minimum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Right, it's not only MDs but other Master degrees. Name a profession requires you to be smart in various fields.

Business.

 

I don't mean running a mom-and-pop shop, I mean running a major corporation. You have to know and understand politics, economics, business, foreign relations, foreign cultures, and etiquette at a bare minimum.

Isn't that true for most times when you're at the top of your field?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is the possibility of Hillary Clinton losing still considered to be out the window? Bernie Sanders, according to the most recent poll (which, given, tend to have a large margin of error), is only 7 points behind, and he is leading widely in New Hampshire and is likely to lead in Iowa. There are some other factors to consider as well, such as the debates; whether Biden will run, thus taking more points away from Clinton; and how the caucus states might favor a candidate who doesn't necessarily hold a lead.

 

And Ben Carson is only 1 point behind Trump in that same poll, which should be worrying to Democrats, as Carson has the highest lead against Democratic candidates in all the match-up polls for whatever reason.

Edited by Guitarguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So is the possibility of Hillary Clinton losing still considered to be out the window?

That depends on whether you're a Bernie Sanders supporter or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly Bernie at this point doesn't have a hope of winning. Angry candidates don't tend to win primary contests. His poll numbers in South Carolina are still pretty bleak which doesn't spell good times for his campaign among minority voters (I keep telling people that Sanders is still basically just another white internet liberal movement but they won't listen), which are hugely important in the Democratic primary cycle.

 

All that is just winning the primary…Pew Research found 58% of Americans wouldn't vote for a candidate who they agreed with or were from the same party if he used the word “socialist” to describe himself, topping “atheist” in this year's rankings. So right there 58% of likely voters wouldn't even vote for him because he describes himself as a democratic socialist.

 

That's a tough hill to climb—Romney got blown out in 2012 by marginalizing what's in comparison a paltry figure of 47% of voters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He doesn't have a 0% chance of winning. It's pretty minuscule, but as said above the socialist word dooms him. The only way he can win is if there's massive excitement for him among young people and he gets huge voter turnout... plus about 100 other things. I like the guy compared to so many other boring or stupid candidates and hope he does well, but I would at least keep expectations fairly low. IMO Ron Paul had a better chance in 2012.

 

Anyway, Rubio is polling 4th in the Republican polls. He's behind the candidates who I don't think will have continued success (Trump, Fiorina, Carson) based on no political experience and some weird views. I think he's the Republicans' best shot at winning. Obviously still fairly early on, but noteworthy.

Edited by Sobend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly Bernie at this point doesn't have a hope of winning. Angry candidates don't tend to win primary contests. His poll numbers in South Carolina are still pretty bleak which doesn't spell good times for his campaign among minority voters (I keep telling people that Sanders is still basically just another white internet liberal movement but they won't listen), which are hugely important in the Democratic primary cycle.

 

All that is just winning the primary…Pew Research found 58% of Americans wouldn't vote for a candidate who they agreed with or were from the same party if he used the word “socialist” to describe himself, topping “atheist” in this year's rankings. So right there 58% of likely voters wouldn't even vote for him because he describes himself as a democratic socialist.

 

That's a tough hill to climb—Romney got blown out in 2012 by marginalizing what's in comparison a paltry figure of 47% of voters.

These points do reflect some major disadvantages of his, but I believe you're underestimating how much everybody else sucks.

 

Naturally, Hillary Clinton has a stable infrastructure, but it has been falling apart with the scandals that have painted her image in the media (and which I don't care about, but that's irrelevant), and this would appear to be reflected both in primary and general election polls.

 

Then you have to compare Sanders to the Republican nominees, the top three of which aren't politicians. While many are surely scared by the word "socialist," general election match-up polls at least show him winning or gaining an increasingly high lead. In fact, the most recent polls show him doing better than Clinton. This is not to mention the assumption that more people will come out to vote for him; I assume, at least, that most liberals feel more strongly about him than most conservatives do, say, Trump.

 

Then there's the fact that he has a lead in New Hampshire, one that is probably established, and, assuming things go at they rate they are, he could lead in Iowa as well. I'm not awfully knowledgeable about this, though, so I may be overestimating the value of these states.

 

I would definitely put the odds against him--if, say, Joe Biden were to announce he isn't running tomorrow, then his votes would go mostly to Clinton, which would nearly doom Sanders--but I believe that he does have a hope of winning.

Edited by Guitarguy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Polls are still pretty meaningless at this point.

 

Sanders has basically no hope of winning a national election; he may have a core of liberals to support him, but most moderate Democrats probably won't even bother voting if he wins the nomination, undecided voters will run away once they hear his platform, and Republicans will come out in droves to keep a socialist out of the White House.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Polls are still pretty meaningless at this point.

 

Sanders has basically no hope of winning a national election; he may have a core of liberals to support him, but most moderate Democrats probably won't even bother voting if he wins the nomination, undecided voters will run away once they hear his platform, and Republicans will come out in droves to keep a socialist out of the White House.

This, also, Iowa and New Hampshire aren't very useful markers regarding Democratic voters—rural voters are more frequently Republicans, leaving only the most Free Soiler-esque voters as Democrats in that state, and New Hampshire has a reputation for being, well, kind of like Jed Bartlet, the fictional President from that state—full of white, elitist, intellectual liberals (admittedly, there are also farmers, but they too are little more than neo-Free-Soilers). Also not very representative of the party at large.

 

Just like the TEA Party is frankly not very representative of the Republican Party (which is more of a pro-business, pro-corporate, not-gay-hating/woman-hating party than people realize), Bernie support is not very representative of the rank-and-file Dems (the day Bernie wins the Southern Dems is the day it turns out I'm secretly Emma Watson's boyfriend that nobody has discovered yet).

 

So, yeah. Considering the top three Repubs are people who have never held political office before, I refuse to believe this is anything but silly season at the moment.

Edited by Thomas Jefferson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refuse to believe this is anything but silly season at the moment.

I can concede to that to a degree. -.-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I refuse to believe this is anything but silly season at the moment.

Yup, that's basically how I've been thinking about all this - on both sides. I just want the serious debates (none of this Republican debate crap that is built for view counts and commercial break revenue) so we can weed out the empty politicians and start to focus on the people who actually have a chance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inevitably, I believe we'll find Lincoln Chafee to be the frontrunner soon after this debate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie Sanders sounds like George Steinbrenner on Seinfeld

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chafee was floundering. Somewhat sad to see. O'Malley seems like another polished politician. Jim Webb didn't get to speak very much and was a bit angry. Bernie Sanders did fairly well.

 

But Clinton did very well compared to everyone else.

Edited by Sobend

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I noticed CNN and other major news networks (of the democratic party) took down polls put up hours after the debate asking the public who they thought won. Apparently the polls were heavily in Sanders' favor (80% for most) and following that, almost every network ran Clinton as the clear winner.

 

Is it not interesting to anyone that Clinton was declared the winner by so many of these big media companies, given that they have supporters who also bankroll her campaign (TimeWarner and CNN for one)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.