login
Election 2016
-
No new posts
|
 2016-05-09 1:43 PM |
Pro  9391     Omaha, NE |  Subject: Election 2016I was thinking it would be a good idea to consolidate the candidate threads down to one to discuss the presidential race in the US. We seem to be discussing everything in the Trump thread now, but in my never ending quest to be more inclusive I feel a more party neutral thread would be better. ;-) |
| 2016-05-09 8:56 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Looks like the Military is full of racist xenophobes...
|
| 2016-05-09 9:49 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 "In the latest survey, nearly half of respondents identified as Republicans, and only 18 percent as Democrats. That partisan divide accounted for much of Trump’s support." Also interesting that the branch that supports Clinton most strongly is the Navy. Hey, Tony, remind me: what branch of the service were you in again?  |
| 2016-05-10 7:43 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn "In the latest survey, nearly half of respondents identified as Republicans, and only 18 percent as Democrats. That partisan divide accounted for much of Trump’s support." Also interesting that the branch that supports Clinton most strongly is the Navy. Hey, Tony, remind me: what branch of the service were you in again? lol, well played. In all seriousness the Military used to be massively Republican for a long time and it has been sliding over the years since I was in. I had thought it was more evenly distributed through the Obama years, but I could have been mistaken.
|
| 2016-05-10 8:36 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Even the article admits that it "is not a scientific poll", so let's not read more into it than the surface level idea that Trump is not hated by the military. The actual percentages are virtually meaningless given their methodology. They can't even calculate a margin of error! From the article: "The sample is not a perfect representation of the military as a whole; it over-represents officers and noncommissioned officers, and under-represents junior enlisted personnel (my note - officers are much more likely to be R than D, so their over representation of this group by ~50% skews their data and any numerical conclusions badly). However, it is representative of the more senior and career-oriented members of the force who run the military's day-to-day operations and carry out its policies. The voluntary nature of this survey, the dependence on email and the characteristics of Military Times readers may affect the results. Statistical margins of error commonly reported in opinion polls that use random sampling can't be calculated for this survey." |
| 2016-05-10 8:49 AM in reply to: ejshowers |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by ejshowers Even the article admits that it "is not a scientific poll", so let's not read more into it than the surface level idea that Trump is not hated by the military. The actual percentages are virtually meaningless given their methodology. They can't even calculate a margin of error! From the article: "The sample is not a perfect representation of the military as a whole; it over-represents officers and noncommissioned officers, and under-represents junior enlisted personnel (my note - officers are much more likely to be R than D, so their over representation of this group by ~50% skews their data and any numerical conclusions badly). However, it is representative of the more senior and career-oriented members of the force who run the military's day-to-day operations and carry out its policies. The voluntary nature of this survey, the dependence on email and the characteristics of Military Times readers may affect the results. Statistical margins of error commonly reported in opinion polls that use random sampling can't be calculated for this survey." Just out of curiosity, is that your opinion or do you have something to back it up? When I was in the Navy back in the 90's the officers were a bunch of liberal freaks and the enlisted were the hard core conservatives. We knew not to ever discuss politics with the officers because it wouldn't end well. |
| 2016-05-10 9:10 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Election 2016 I did some research :-) Here are 2 articles with some info and data that aren't too old, but there is a bunch more if interested I am sure. http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/05/does-the-military-vote-really-... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/11/04/mi... Also to note - military folks vote in their state like everyone else and they tend to be from already R states, so looking at them as a voting bloc doesn't mean that much from an electoral college perspective at least. |
| 2016-05-10 9:23 AM in reply to: ejshowers |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by ejshowers I did some research :-) Here are 2 articles with some info and data that aren't too old, but there is a bunch more if interested I am sure. http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/05/does-the-military-vote-really-... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/11/04/mi... Also to note - military folks vote in their state like everyone else and they tend to be from already R states, so looking at them as a voting bloc doesn't mean that much from an electoral college perspective at least. Good info thanks. |
| 2016-05-10 9:42 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Bernie for prez, woooo! YEAHHHHH! ALLL RIHGTTTT!!!! |
| 2016-05-10 9:44 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by ejshowers I did some research :-) Here are 2 articles with some info and data that aren't too old, but there is a bunch more if interested I am sure. http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/05/does-the-military-vote-really-... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/11/04/mi... Also to note - military folks vote in their state like everyone else and they tend to be from already R states, so looking at them as a voting bloc doesn't mean that much from an electoral college perspective at least. Good info thanks. From the Time article that ej posted: "Indeed, there has been a conservative drift among U.S. military officers since the draft ended. In a 2009 survey of 4,000 Army officers, Heidi Urben, an active-duty officer and doctoral candidate at Georgetown University, found that between 1976 and 1996, the share of senior military officers identifying itself as Republican jumped from one-third to two-thirds, while those claiming to be moderates fell from 46% to 22%. Senior military officers who described themselves as liberal fell from 16% in 1976 to 3% in 1996. Urben found that younger officers leaving the Army were far more likely to identify themselves as Democrats than those opting to stay, which would tend to make the more senior ranks increasingly Republican. “Past surveys have shown senior military officers to generally be conservative and identify with the Republican Party, a trend which has solidified with the advent and professionalism of the all-volunteer force,” Urben wrote in her 2010 dissertation. “Meanwhile, recent surveys suggest that the officer corps is more likely to be conservative and Republican than most enlisted Soldiers, an important distinction to keep in mind, considering enlisted Soldiers outnumber officers by four to one in the Army.” It goes on to say, though, that in the last election, campaign contributions from "self-described military personnel" overwhelmingly favored Obama, by 85% ($678K vs $400k). Not sure how to interpret that. Maybe there are more GOP-leaning soldiers, but they tend to be less active politically than those who lean left? |
| 2016-05-10 10:55 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 Bernie for prez, woooo! YEAHHHHH! ALLL RIHGTTTT!!!! I don't know if it tells us anything else, but I did find it a little interesting that Bernie seems to be getting a lot more support than Hillary from the troops. |
| 2016-05-10 11:04 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood From the Time article that ej posted: "Indeed, there has been a conservative drift among U.S. military officers since the draft ended. In a 2009 survey of 4,000 Army officers, Heidi Urben, an active-duty officer and doctoral candidate at Georgetown University, found that between 1976 and 1996, the share of senior military officers identifying itself as Republican jumped from one-third to two-thirds, while those claiming to be moderates fell from 46% to 22%. Senior military officers who described themselves as liberal fell from 16% in 1976 to 3% in 1996. Urben found that younger officers leaving the Army were far more likely to identify themselves as Democrats than those opting to stay, which would tend to make the more senior ranks increasingly Republican. “Past surveys have shown senior military officers to generally be conservative and identify with the Republican Party, a trend which has solidified with the advent and professionalism of the all-volunteer force,” Urben wrote in her 2010 dissertation. “Meanwhile, recent surveys suggest that the officer corps is more likely to be conservative and Republican than most enlisted Soldiers, an important distinction to keep in mind, considering enlisted Soldiers outnumber officers by four to one in the Army.” It goes on to say, though, that in the last election, campaign contributions from "self-described military personnel" overwhelmingly favored Obama, by 85% ($678K vs $400k). Not sure how to interpret that. Maybe there are more GOP-leaning soldiers, but they tend to be less active politically than those who lean left? Originally posted by ejshowers I did some research :-) Here are 2 articles with some info and data that aren't too old, but there is a bunch more if interested I am sure. http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/05/does-the-military-vote-really-... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/11/04/mi... Also to note - military folks vote in their state like everyone else and they tend to be from already R states, so looking at them as a voting bloc doesn't mean that much from an electoral college perspective at least. Good info thanks. Urben found that younger officers leaving the Army were far more likely to identify themselves as Democrats than those opting to stay I wonder if that's where we saw the behavior on my ship. Most of the officers were younger junior officers straight out of college. We always joked that they were freshly brainwashed by the university system. |
| 2016-05-10 12:47 PM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood From the Time article that ej posted: "Indeed, there has been a conservative drift among U.S. military officers since the draft ended. In a 2009 survey of 4,000 Army officers, Heidi Urben, an active-duty officer and doctoral candidate at Georgetown University, found that between 1976 and 1996, the share of senior military officers identifying itself as Republican jumped from one-third to two-thirds, while those claiming to be moderates fell from 46% to 22%. Senior military officers who described themselves as liberal fell from 16% in 1976 to 3% in 1996. Urben found that younger officers leaving the Army were far more likely to identify themselves as Democrats than those opting to stay, which would tend to make the more senior ranks increasingly Republican. “Past surveys have shown senior military officers to generally be conservative and identify with the Republican Party, a trend which has solidified with the advent and professionalism of the all-volunteer force,” Urben wrote in her 2010 dissertation. “Meanwhile, recent surveys suggest that the officer corps is more likely to be conservative and Republican than most enlisted Soldiers, an important distinction to keep in mind, considering enlisted Soldiers outnumber officers by four to one in the Army.” It goes on to say, though, that in the last election, campaign contributions from "self-described military personnel" overwhelmingly favored Obama, by 85% ($678K vs $400k). Not sure how to interpret that. Maybe there are more GOP-leaning soldiers, but they tend to be less active politically than those who lean left? Originally posted by ejshowers I did some research :-) Here are 2 articles with some info and data that aren't too old, but there is a bunch more if interested I am sure. http://swampland.time.com/2012/11/05/does-the-military-vote-really-... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2014/11/04/mi... Also to note - military folks vote in their state like everyone else and they tend to be from already R states, so looking at them as a voting bloc doesn't mean that much from an electoral college perspective at least. Good info thanks. Urben found that younger officers leaving the Army were far more likely to identify themselves as Democrats than those opting to stay I wonder if that's where we saw the behavior on my ship. Most of the officers were younger junior officers straight out of college. We always joked that they were freshly brainwashed by the university system. I went to a pretty liberal school (I hope you were sitting down for that), and most of the people I knew in ROTC were overwhelmingly more conservative than the average student. That's just my n=1. That said, "more conservative that the average student at a Northeastern Liberal Elite university" isn't really saying a whole lot. I'm probably more conservative than most of the kids I went to school with, so.... Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2016-05-10 12:48 PM |
| 2016-05-10 2:05 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Extreme Veteran 2263 Ridgeland, Mississippi | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 Bernie for prez, woooo! YEAHHHHH! ALLL RIHGTTTT!!!! I'll hold off on paying the rest of my student loans juuuuust in case. |
| 2016-05-10 2:08 PM in reply to: msteiner |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by msteiner Originally posted by dmiller5 Bernie for prez, woooo! YEAHHHHH! ALLL RIHGTTTT!!!! I'll hold off on paying the rest of my student loans juuuuust in case. Wouldn't that be the worst thing ever. Just finish paying off all your loans and then bam, Bernie gets in office and forgives them all. That would be my luck. |
| 2016-05-10 3:19 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by msteiner Originally posted by dmiller5 Bernie for prez, woooo! YEAHHHHH! ALLL RIHGTTTT!!!! I'll hold off on paying the rest of my student loans juuuuust in case. Wouldn't that be the worst thing ever. Just finish paying off all your loans and then bam, Bernie gets in office and forgives them all. That would be my luck. haha, small subset of very angry millenials |
| 2016-05-10 7:46 PM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 btw, i voted in our primary today. Our vote was so close to actually mattering this year, but I digress. I won't tell you who I voted for because I like to keep politics to myself. ;-) |
| 2016-05-10 9:32 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Swing state polls show Clinton, Trump in airtight race I know we have had discussions in the past about how Trump would do in the swing states so I found this interesting. |
| 2016-05-11 4:10 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Swing state polls show Clinton, Trump in airtight race I know we have had discussions in the past about how Trump would do in the swing states so I found this interesting. Not half as interesting as the comments section... |
| 2016-05-11 6:20 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Not half as interesting as the comments section... Swing state polls show Clinton, Trump in airtight race I know we have had discussions in the past about how Trump would do in the swing states so I found this interesting. I have to confess that I generally enjoy reading the comments more than the articles. |
| 2016-05-11 8:05 AM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by tuwood Not half as interesting as the comments section... Swing state polls show Clinton, Trump in airtight race I know we have had discussions in the past about how Trump would do in the swing states so I found this interesting. I have to confess that I generally enjoy reading the comments more than the articles. I follow Gov Cuomo on FB and the comments on his posts are hilarious. No matter what he posts, he'll get dozens, if not hundreds of people posting angrily about something totally unrelated to the topic. They usually fall into the following categories: --Why isn't he doing more to support teachers' salaries and outlaw standardized testing? --He's a gun-grabbing liberal commie --Why has he sold out to big oil/big pharma/big whoever? --FRACKING!!!!! Literally, no matter what. The other day, he posted something about a renovation project in Central Park, a public space used by millions of people every year, and paid for largely with private donations, and the first ten comments were about guns, teachers salaries, and fracking. And they're always written in such a way as to suggest that the person who wrote it assumes that the Governor is sitting at home reading their comments on his iPad. It makes me wonder why anyone would want to be a politician. There's a Simpsons episode where, after the citizens demand a Bear Patrol to prevent bears from wandering into Springfield, and then, just as loudly, demand that the Bear Patrol is too expensive and that they don't want to pay for it, Mayor Quimby asks, "Are these people getting stupider, or just louder?" Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2016-05-11 8:13 AM |
| 2016-05-13 10:04 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Hillary's really crushing it in the polls: I had a thought on this particular poll. Everyone likes to bring up Trumps "woman problem" because of his lower numbers with women. However, Hillary has an equally bad "man problem" that everyone seems to be ignoring. Does this cancel out the Trump negatives with women? (from 5/10 Reuters poll) Male Support: |
| 2016-05-13 10:31 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Election 2016 one poll maketh an election not |
| 2016-05-13 10:40 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Election 2016 Originally posted by dmiller5 one poll maketh an election not Of course, but considering there's "no possible way Trump could win the election" (spoken by many) there should be no possible way he could be even at any time with Hillary in the polls, right? Especially this early and with such a "fractured" GOP base.
|
| 2016-05-13 11:13 AM in reply to: #5180918 |
Master 2802 Minnetonka, Minnesota Bronze member | Subject: RE: Election 2016 I don't see why you would think this poll has any correlation to the state polls you posted. Can you help me understand from a statistical perspective (more than a gut feel) why? Also, state polling is notoriously inaccurate this far out, especially just a single poll. You are better off looking at national polls or especially poll aggregates at this point. As you say, things will become more clear after the conventions and especially post Labor Day when more people start to pay attention. |
|
|
|
|
| |||
| 2016 - WTF Pages: 1 2 | ||
| |||
| Election 2014 Pages: 1 2 3 | ||
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK