Question as a non-American: why did these candidates (virtually) win the primaries? Were the other candidates of the end-run liked even less? Are the voters that vote in the primaries not representative for the general population?
I think the rest of candidates were even worse. You can take Cruz, who is the weirdest and most spineless guy I've ever seen, or Bernie, who is a Jewish socialist.
Bernie has described himself as a "secular Jew who does not practice any religion". So if he doesn't practice any form of Judaism, to what extent can you say that his Jewishness is not racial? What else is it?
My parent implied there was something "worse" about a "Jewish socialist" - ie because of his birth parents, in part, Bernie Sanders is a worse candidate.
Maybe it's an honest question but I suspect you're simply choosing to be pedantic with the definitions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism is peppered with references to the persecution of the Jews, so evidently others would file it under racism. Either way, my parent's comment was out of line.
I think on the Republican side the other candidates were either weak-water, nutty or too divisive. If they'd had a 10 years younger McCain in there he'd have walked away with it. Trump wouldn't have stood a chance. But while many of the things Trump said were alarming, many of the things the other candidates were saying were also alarming. They also lacked the spine to properly stand up to him and allowed his position on things to dictate theirs. When he took an extreme position on something they moved to becoming more extreme on it as well, which lended him credibility.
On the Democrat side, the Clintons just have such deep roots in the Democrat party institutions. Whatever you think of her personally she's a very experienced heavy hitter and her husband is still very popular in his own right. Many people on the Democrat side that dislike Hillary personally still like Bill.
I've been following Bernie's run very closely (and am the foolish pollyanna type that still has his fingers crossed for a miracle in California)
But, if you look at Clinton/Bernie he underperformed in States with "closed primaries" meaning people had to declare party affiliation months in advance. (New York was almost a year ago) independents and swing-voters weren't allowed to say "hey, I actually like this Bernie guy."
Bernie did overwhelmingly well in places with open primaries. On two occasions he "beat the polls" (IIRC -Indiana and one other had Clinton's chances of winning at ~99% and he came out with victory) open primaries are being credited with contributing to that phenomenon. People who have never voted are coming into the mix for Bernie
If you look closely you will also see a couple States where there has been either "gross incompetence" or voter suppression / electoral fraud.
People's part affiliation swapped without their knowledge, budget cuts forcing extremely long lines, running out of ballots.
In some areas around electronic voting machines, the disparity between voter counts and exit polls are higher than the ones seen at the Ukrainian election which was declared fraudulent.
In Chicago for example there was an "audit" where the observers saw the clerks alter their tallies to match the expected number.
I know that it's all very "tinfoil hat" sounding, but there are a number of places where the disparity is highly suspect.
Edit: (Apologies, I started pasting in references for my outlandish claims and it got wiped because of a mobile-page-reload and have now got to decide whether or not to throw my phone out the bleeping window :))
> I know that it's all very "tinfoil hat" sounding, but there are a number of places where the disparity is highly suspect.
It is tinfoil hat sounding because it is tinfoil hat territory.
I'm sorry, but the internet has made Sanders supporters lose touch with reality; Hillary Clinton, even at the very end, still beat Sanders by double digits (source: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-d...). The Obama vs Clinton matchup was much, much closer. We're only talking a few point difference.
I saw this same thing happen back in 2008 with Ron Paul. Paul supporters had a hard time believing that Paul didn't stand a chance.
The reason Clinton trounced Sanders is multifaceted; First off, Sanders is old and he's Jewish. Unfortunately, that puts some people off right away (bigotry and prejudice is still alive and well in America). Secondly, he embraced the term Socialist. While people under 40 may be aware of what that term entails (we think of European/democratic socialism, not Russian/Chinese socialism) the older generation & boomers still thinks of the commies and pinkos. America is still 10-30 years away from using that word without the stigma & negative connotations. And that kind of sums up Sanders; he's espousing an ideology that America isn't quite ready for.
We need to move further to the left a bit. Kind of like how the GOP has kept moving this country to the right over the last 35 years, we need to move it back to the center, and ultimately to the left. I'm a democratic socialist myself but even I knew Sanders didn't stand a chance. That's because I'm aware that it's going to take some time. Perhaps a couple decades. It starts with small steps, electing moderates who lean left, then finally left candidates like Sanders.
I dont think it needs to take that mucb time. Elizabeth Warren would have had a better shot than Sanders and would have still stood for a lot of the same stuff.
Well history has shown it takes at least that much time. It took that much time for the republicans to push our country to the right as much as they have; it would take at least that long to push it back to the left.
I can't see anything in your link that clearly indicates your position WRT clinton overwhelmingly winning open ones.
Wiki does not list open primaries, her win proportion of those, or the 'goal difference' in terms of awarded delegates. So - I'm not sure your statement is entirely true either.
The Wiki link lists contest type, winner and margin. It is very easy to compare and see how each candidate has performed.
The facts are, in open primaries Clinton has won 10-4. If you include semi-open it's 11-4. In closed primaries Clinton has won 8-1. If you include semi closed its 10-3. There is no meaningful difference. Sanders underperforms in all primary types.
The only contest type Sanders has performed better in are caucuses, winning 11-4. These are the least democratic type of contest of them all.
The first-past-the-post voting model is broken and virtually guarantees a two-party system where voters must vote strategically for candidates they don't support to avoid their least-preferred candidate winning. For instance, you may prefer Bernie Sander's policies but still vote Hillary if you think she will have a better chance against Trump in the election. Or you may prefer other Republican candidates, but want to avoid Trump going independent, splitting the voter base and handing the victory to the Democrats.
I think this is a huge problem with the current system, as the lack of candidates they agree with make people get disillusioned and stop voting.
It's more or less unavoidable if voters are voting strategically. The sad and undemocratic reality of FPTP is that voting for a third-party candidate with little chance to win is "throwing away your vote".
I understand it that in Canada it's first-past-the-post per "riding", so I'd expect each riding to have a maximum of two viable parties. I'm sure it's messier than that in the real world, but I still think you'd be better off with something else than FPTP.
You need votes from only 4.5% of the 220 million Americans eligible to vote to get your party nomination in general election.
Using ballpark numbers to present the idea:
You have country with 220 million Americans eligible to vote. 16 percent of all age-eligible citizens voted in the 2012 presidential primaries. That's 35 million. If those voters are equally divided between the two parties, and winning party candidate gets roughly half of the votes, they get their party nomination with 9 million votes each.
Checked the numbers and they check out. George W. Bush, with his 10.8 million votes in 2000 is the record holder in the GOP side. Trump will likely break this record.
16% is a shockingly low number. That means less than 8.001% of the population decide the range of opinions allowed in the presidential office. By the time the general election is over, the winner will be bound to a platform fundamentally agreed on by 4% of voters at best.
We have some problems in this area in Europe as well, but US numbers are ridiculous. How can candidates say that they represent "the whole country" with a straight face?
Because voters are assumed to be a sampling of Americans. Is there reason to believe that preferences are significantly different among those that don't vote?
Oh yes. Political scientist have extensively studied the issue.
Those who vote in primaries represent different demographics than Americans in general. There are differences in age, race and ethnicity, education, income, religious and political views.
On the Democrat side, it is a rigged system. The concept of "super delegates" who don't vote by primary voter choice - instead they vote by some nebulous concepts such as "democrat purity" - has meant the Clintons' deep connections have triumphed over the enthusiasm that Bernie has supported.
On the Republican side, Trump did something I don't think people quite get yet. He basically became a gaffe machine and didn't walk it back. Everyday was 2 or 3 gaffes that kept him in the news. He covered one gaffe with another.
Trump did well because of the early open primaries allowed him to do well. Plus, Fox News continued pushing of him helped. A perfect storm of hate for the establishment. He lost my own state because our reps didn't buy it.
What I didn't know until very recently is that S. Adams subscribes to every New Age bullshit under the sun. I mean, the whole lot, law of attraction and all that crap.
One would think that all this goes against his Dilbert character and aligns more with something his PHB would believe... but yeah... surprise!!
I am disappointed Clinton played the gender card - that was her best argument? I thought Adams' assessment was fair. I really don't like Trump's policies, but, a person who can't see past their own gender and only represents 1/2 the population? That's a great way to lose 1/2 the votes.
It's an amazing feat, but, Clinton managed to change my mind and convince me that Trump is the best candidate of the two. Shudder the thought!
I truly feel for the Amerucan population. The only choice is who to block out, rather than who to vote in.
What I find truly comical and will be the biggest laugh of all other elections is when Ted Cruz and John Kasich declared their biggest qualifications were "Vote for me because I'm not Trump".
I sadly have to agree that Trump, as repulsive as he is, is actually the better candidate. Clinton is a downright evil person. A callous war hawk with little regard for other humans. Trump is just a racist egomaniacal narcissist but I doubt he has the blood thirst of Hillary.
As much as I love his comic strip, I'd be wary of his political analyses.
He thinks he's a trained hypnotist(hypnosis is total baloney) and he thinks he has awesome persuasion skills. Oh by the way he thinks that Trump has awesome persuasion skills as well.
I don't think there's much analysis that needs to be done for the Trump phenomenon. He is a narcissistic douche, exuding "success" according to the contemporary American standards. The mass has been completely brainwashed for the past decades, with regards to what happiness and success looks like. Case closed.
There are no magical persuasion skills at play here.
Appealing and persuasive aren't the same things; Trump is "appealing" to a certain demographic and mindset of the U.S population and that's how he bulldozed the GOP - he was charismatic to the right group of people at the right time. The GOP really did it to themselves... they moved so far right over the last 30 years that this happening was inevitable. I remember saying back in 2008 that if the GOP keeps this up (anyone remember Palin or Huckabee?), they're going to have have some batshit crazy candidate running for president. And here we are. He's not convincing anyone who believed something different; he's just pandering to an already primed base (a base which has been moving further right ever since Reagan beat Carter). I think opportunist would be a better word here.
Um... curious to see your evidence. I've "hypnotized" people too. Everyone can "hypnotize" some people. All evidence goes against any kind of altered state of mind though. More like submissive role-playing.
Also, for future reference, things that should make your alarm bells go off:
a) something works on someone only when you describe it to that someone
b) something works only on some people, not all of them and you don't know why.
EDIT: some people didn't understand that what I'm implying with the above points is that hypnosis is more akin to the placebo effect than anything else(altered state of mind etc).
So what you're saying is that any successful "narcissistic douche", by today's standards, would have won the GOP nominations. Is that right? What about the democratic nominations? If a democratic candidate, are you saying that Trump would have won those as well?
Well, you haven't made any assertions (e.g. something whose truthiness can be evaluated, like A => B).
Your only claim is that Trump is successful by today's standard. You're implying that's the reason for his success and not his "persuasive skills" and you don't mention anything else, but you are saying "case closed" as if these words are enough.
But how does that contradict that he has persuasion skills?
In fact, by today's standards, to have success one very important ingredient is to have persuasion skills, also known as salesmanship. Many of us, software developers are sadly not good at salesmanship, but at least we can recognize it when we see it. And personally I think Trump has it, even if his style is obnoxious.
That he has skills only because of today's standards, that may be true, but I wouldn't be so sure of causality: are today's standards responsible for Trump's success, or has Trump adapted to today's standards? I guess we'll never know.
My problem with your argument is that it seems you're considering Trump to be unskilled. I think that's a mistake and if I were in Trump's shoes, that's exactly how I'd like for people like us to think, because he's not the kind of man leaning towards dialog, strategies or cooperation, but rather the kind that does battles and in battles you want to be an asshole (people love assholes in battles, because they make a good show and supposedly show "strength"). And also you want to be underestimated.
It directly contradicts all that because if you read my comment, what I'm saying is: a) the general population is at state FOO, b) Trump is at state FOO, ergo no persuasion needed. They just happen to coincide. It really wasn't that hard to infer what I was saying.
To everything else you're saying: if you think Trump's past displays awesome management skills and strategy, well ok. We just disagree I guess?
Personally, to people like Trump, I wouldn't even trust them with carrying out the simplest of tasks. If you think he has achieved much, I'd refer you to his family's wealth and connections. If you still disagree, then we just agree to disagree.
It's more like democracies have been electing Celebreties more than leaders for a while now. Thanks to social media and the 247 hype cycle, the best celebs whether its Obama or Trump or Kim Kardashian, are capable of capturing the scatterbrained attention of the herd.
And thats what we are wasting our time selecting for in elections...whether in US, Canada, India, Indonesia its playing out everywhere. We are going to keep electing celebrities. And thats why so many ppl are sick of it cause we know are not getting leaders.
Lol, trump wouldn't survive ten minutes in any properly cut-throat competition. The way he makes enemies of everyone in power would see him offed in the first act.
OK, to wrap it up: I'm positing that hypnosis CANNOT force a person to do something that goes against their will.
If you have evidence that suggests, or better yet proves, otherwise please paste a link.
EDIT: lately it's become apparent to me that whenever you ask for citation, people downvote you. People, just because you disagree you don't have to downvote. Just offer some evidence to what you're supporting.
Sorry, I should have posted a link. You are quite right in asking for proof.
Here's an excerpt of the declassified MK ULTRA reports released by Freedom of Information Act in 2001 (as well as parts released previously), and printed in Lapham's Quarterly <http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/spies/new-york-state-mind>:
> H experimentation, February 10, 1954
> The group of five subjects appeared on schedule. A posthypnotic of the night before (pointed finger, you will sleep) was enacted. Mses. [redacted] and [redacted] immediately progressed to a deep hypnotic state. [Redacted] was then instructed (having previously expressed a fear of firearms in any fashion) that she would use every method at her disposal to awaken [redacted] (now in a deep hypnotic sleep), and failing this, she would pick up a pistol nearby and fire it at [redacted]. She was instructed that her rage would be so great that she would not hesitate to “kill” [redacted] for failing to awaken.
> [Redacted] carried out these suggestions to the letter, including firing the (unloaded pneumatic) gun at [redacted] and then proceeding to fall into a deep sleep. After proper suggestions were made, both were awakened and expressed complete amnesia for the entire sequence. [Re- dacted] was again handed the gun, which she refused (in an awakened state) to pick up or accept from the operator. She expressed absolute denial that the foregoing sequence had happened.
I believe that counts as doing something against ones will.
Lapham had a widely distributed issue titled "Spies", I recall, in which the linked article (or a variant of it) appeared.
First of all, thanks for the links. I admit I didn't read the 147-page pdf, but I think we can classify it with all the rest, at the same level of "evidence".
As far as I can see there's nothing new here, other than the usual super-secret 3-letter agency experiments, full of material for great spy movies but thin on substance or evidence. I think you'd agree that the same quality of evidence is abundant for aliens, area 51 and all that.
>I believe that counts as doing something against ones will.
Um nope :)
Hypnotize someone and instruct them to do some kind of self-harm. Jump off a roof. Shoot themselves or whatnot. It won't happen :D
So maybe I wasn't clear earlier. I am aligned with the scientific consensus at this point. And that, at the moment, is that this is hocus-pocus, placebo effect and the usual trait of humans that they need an excuse to justify actions that would usually never do. You know, kinda like "oh no, the alcohol did it!"
Maybe we'll have stronger evidence in the future, but right now it's all smoke. Nevertheless, interesting.
People can certainly be compelled to do things they would not otherwise do by what people would ordinarily call hypnosis. The focus on harm brings MK ULTRA to mind. However, a more generic definition is widely documented in the medical literature, see e.g.
Self-harm may not be possible, as you say. Given the the nature of hypnotic suggestion, I speculate it is possible to suggest a separation of the physical self from the harm, and in that way trick someone into self harm. Particularly when combined with mind-altering drugs like LSD. But I've no evidence other than the reports linked.
The MK ULTRA report was read into evidence at Senate hearings because the truth of the report indicated abominable and deplorable practices. Nobody has, in spite of powerful incentives to do so, denied the truth of these reports. That ought to be a compelling indicator, IMHO.
Though I did not see an article discussing harm, dozens of articles on PubMed describe the effects of hypnosis (versus placebo).
I feel like your standard may be practically unattainable, meaning one must ask: What sort of evidence would convince you?
Yeah I forgot to address the LSD part that I saw in the links you gave me.
So all bets(and my opinions) are off, when LSD enters the game :)
I was only discussing pure hypnosis, so I can concede whatever you want if you put LSD into the discussion.
My standards are a bit high, but not unattainable. In general, I stick to what is the current scientific consensus. I appreciate any research in all directions, but until that research produces tangible and specific results, I'll abstain.
Mostly because I've seen what happens when people run wild with their assumptions and imagination. e.g. homeopathy, various other medical conditions(leaky gut syndrome) and other less worrying stuff, like aliens or super-secret technology.
Add on top of it various funny facts, like that CIA has also experimented with telekinesis, telepathy, etc and all kind of crazy loony-baloney that, of course, resulted to nothing, and you've got an explanation about my strong stance against extraordinary claims.
Also keep in mind, just at the back of you head, that no government agency that sunk gazillions of dollars into crazy shit, would like to admit that it was all for nothing. Ain't saying that it's all fabrication, but if it were... it wouldn't be the first time. Better to get caught doing "despicable" acts, rather than spending tax dollars that amounted to nothing. And of course, don't forget that you must terrify your enemies.
How could he, of all people, have not seen this coming?
Trump basically "primaried" his way to the nomination by going hard right to appeal to the Republican talk-radio base. He'll lose of, course, in the general, but that's the basic strategy of winning any Republican nomination. Many, many Republicans have won their local primaries only to lose in the general.
Yes, but if we go by number of followers on social media, then Germany is already ruled by nazis. (The far-right AfD has more fans on Facebook than all the other parties combined.)
I don't think you can go by the previous "many Republicans" and say that Trump is going to fall prey to the same things they did. I'm not saying he's unstoppable and I'm not saying you have to throw out all conventional wisdom but he's at least so far defied most expectations (which of course are mostly based on historical data)
He's only defied expectations within his own party. The U.S consists of more than the republican party; You have independents, third parties and the democrats. So sure, he'll have those hard right neocons voting for him, but what about everyone else? What about the moderate (disenfranchised) republicans? Or the independents and democrats? I'm sorry, but I haven't met a single independent or democrat who said they'd vote for Trump. He's about as polarizing as they come. He'll get creamed in the general election. I'll go so far as to say that it will be the biggest landslide in history. I'm talking double digits.
This is how I see it. I would also guess that a much larger portion of Sanders voters will not vote in the general vs everyone else who voted against Trump in the primary.
As far as I can tell, neoconservatives are horrified by Trump and believe (maybe incorrectly) that he is an isolationist, for entitlements, and against free trade, which is antithetical to their political beliefs.
Cruise on by the National Review or Red State and it's all panic and doom and gloom and "#nevertrump".
It's not only in USA, it's worldwide trend, you can observe same strong dislike in EU countries toward their candidates for high office. Society is divided and it seems like there is lack of good leadership this days.
Not sure what evidence there is that the quality of leaders has changed, but there is evidence that both (a) we perceive strangers differently (compared to say the 1960s), see Robert Putnam's book Our Kids and (b) there are cognitive biases that push us to think things are getting worse (declinism, rosy retrospection, positivity effect).
Americans sick of oligarchy, either billionaire business class or nepotism, you choose. Actually this is really great. It really says something profound about American politics.
Interestingly, excluding 2000 (where Gore arguably won anyway), and 1992, being the most disliked means you win...
From that, I would take that firing up your base (and thus making the other side dislike you more) is more effective than being moderate and trying to appeal to both sides.
Eight years. Both parties have had eight years to find candidates. This is what they give us. Talk about scraping the sludge off the bottom of the barrel.
"Americans’ Distaste for Both Trump and Clinton Is Record-Breaking"
No more so than the rest of the world's distaste for the US system. Everyone else can elect a government in a couple months or even weeks. We're sick of hearing about your pretty little mini-elections. Just get on with it!
Americans invented this. Their celeb culture requires months of 247 entertainment. Now its exported everywhere. Modi in India. Trudeau in Canada. They are all just following the Obama built hype model of leadership through entertainment.
That;s not the issue. That's been around for a far longer time than Obama. What is so painful about the US system is that rather than have proper elections, say a party-wide vote for the nomination, they have this series of tiny mini-elections where every week is another battle royal. The net result is a paralysed political system where the real problems are totally ignored.
And I cannot be the only one here who's ears bleed every time I hear some pundit talk of the "black vote" or how evangelicals have this or that opinion. I see some of the CNN pundits, many of which are actually Canadian, flinch every time they are fed such lines. The American political obsession with racial and religious categories is just creepy.
Its all entertainment. I.e. meaningless bullshit. Its equivalent to the guys who review the latest episode of game of thrones for 3 hrs and have 10 hrs or random analysis lined up for the rest of the week till the next episode appears. When I see the time and effort Americans put into their pop culture its like watching aliens from another planet.
And they all have so much to say, with such eloquence and speed about essentially nothing just blows my mind.
93 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 176 ms ] threadJudaism is not a race. Why do you say that it's better to leave race out of it when nobody has mentioned race?
Maybe it's an honest question but I suspect you're simply choosing to be pedantic with the definitions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism is peppered with references to the persecution of the Jews, so evidently others would file it under racism. Either way, my parent's comment was out of line.
I'm not American either, but my understanding is that the answer to this question is a big yes.
On the Democrat side, the Clintons just have such deep roots in the Democrat party institutions. Whatever you think of her personally she's a very experienced heavy hitter and her husband is still very popular in his own right. Many people on the Democrat side that dislike Hillary personally still like Bill.
But, if you look at Clinton/Bernie he underperformed in States with "closed primaries" meaning people had to declare party affiliation months in advance. (New York was almost a year ago) independents and swing-voters weren't allowed to say "hey, I actually like this Bernie guy."
Bernie did overwhelmingly well in places with open primaries. On two occasions he "beat the polls" (IIRC -Indiana and one other had Clinton's chances of winning at ~99% and he came out with victory) open primaries are being credited with contributing to that phenomenon. People who have never voted are coming into the mix for Bernie
If you look closely you will also see a couple States where there has been either "gross incompetence" or voter suppression / electoral fraud.
People's part affiliation swapped without their knowledge, budget cuts forcing extremely long lines, running out of ballots.
In some areas around electronic voting machines, the disparity between voter counts and exit polls are higher than the ones seen at the Ukrainian election which was declared fraudulent.
In Chicago for example there was an "audit" where the observers saw the clerks alter their tallies to match the expected number.
I know that it's all very "tinfoil hat" sounding, but there are a number of places where the disparity is highly suspect.
Edit: (Apologies, I started pasting in references for my outlandish claims and it got wiped because of a mobile-page-reload and have now got to decide whether or not to throw my phone out the bleeping window :))
Here's one reference covering a few points about the electoral fraud thing: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/its-not-just-arizona-elec_b_9...
The examples have gotten more egregious since it was written though.
It is tinfoil hat sounding because it is tinfoil hat territory.
I'm sorry, but the internet has made Sanders supporters lose touch with reality; Hillary Clinton, even at the very end, still beat Sanders by double digits (source: http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-national-d...). The Obama vs Clinton matchup was much, much closer. We're only talking a few point difference.
I saw this same thing happen back in 2008 with Ron Paul. Paul supporters had a hard time believing that Paul didn't stand a chance.
The reason Clinton trounced Sanders is multifaceted; First off, Sanders is old and he's Jewish. Unfortunately, that puts some people off right away (bigotry and prejudice is still alive and well in America). Secondly, he embraced the term Socialist. While people under 40 may be aware of what that term entails (we think of European/democratic socialism, not Russian/Chinese socialism) the older generation & boomers still thinks of the commies and pinkos. America is still 10-30 years away from using that word without the stigma & negative connotations. And that kind of sums up Sanders; he's espousing an ideology that America isn't quite ready for.
We need to move further to the left a bit. Kind of like how the GOP has kept moving this country to the right over the last 35 years, we need to move it back to the center, and ultimately to the left. I'm a democratic socialist myself but even I knew Sanders didn't stand a chance. That's because I'm aware that it's going to take some time. Perhaps a couple decades. It starts with small steps, electing moderates who lean left, then finally left candidates like Sanders.
You're right that Overwhelmingly well was a massive oversimplification and exaggeration.
More accurate would be "appears to perform worse in closed primaries"
http://www.vox.com/2016/4/28/11528764/closed-primaries-berni...
https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/04/19/bernie-...
I can't see anything in your link that clearly indicates your position WRT clinton overwhelmingly winning open ones.
Wiki does not list open primaries, her win proportion of those, or the 'goal difference' in terms of awarded delegates. So - I'm not sure your statement is entirely true either.
The facts are, in open primaries Clinton has won 10-4. If you include semi-open it's 11-4. In closed primaries Clinton has won 8-1. If you include semi closed its 10-3. There is no meaningful difference. Sanders underperforms in all primary types.
The only contest type Sanders has performed better in are caucuses, winning 11-4. These are the least democratic type of contest of them all.
I think this is a huge problem with the current system, as the lack of candidates they agree with make people get disillusioned and stop voting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
I understand it that in Canada it's first-past-the-post per "riding", so I'd expect each riding to have a maximum of two viable parties. I'm sure it's messier than that in the real world, but I still think you'd be better off with something else than FPTP.
For instance, looking at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Results_by_riding_of_the_Canad..., is the Green Party accomplishing anything else than diverting votes from other parties?
Using ballpark numbers to present the idea:
You have country with 220 million Americans eligible to vote. 16 percent of all age-eligible citizens voted in the 2012 presidential primaries. That's 35 million. If those voters are equally divided between the two parties, and winning party candidate gets roughly half of the votes, they get their party nomination with 9 million votes each.
Checked the numbers and they check out. George W. Bush, with his 10.8 million votes in 2000 is the record holder in the GOP side. Trump will likely break this record.
We have some problems in this area in Europe as well, but US numbers are ridiculous. How can candidates say that they represent "the whole country" with a straight face?
Those who vote in primaries represent different demographics than Americans in general. There are differences in age, race and ethnicity, education, income, religious and political views.
https://youtu.be/dGeyhgp2N8A?t=151
On the Republican side, Trump did something I don't think people quite get yet. He basically became a gaffe machine and didn't walk it back. Everyday was 2 or 3 gaffes that kept him in the news. He covered one gaffe with another.
If what he says is remotely true then politics is never going to be the same again.
"The magnetic strip makes you think if debt which is bad"
There's no evidence that thinking of debt (a) happens or (b) is bad
The whole post feels like that to me.
What I didn't know until very recently is that S. Adams subscribes to every New Age bullshit under the sun. I mean, the whole lot, law of attraction and all that crap.
One would think that all this goes against his Dilbert character and aligns more with something his PHB would believe... but yeah... surprise!!
It's an amazing feat, but, Clinton managed to change my mind and convince me that Trump is the best candidate of the two. Shudder the thought!
I truly feel for the Amerucan population. The only choice is who to block out, rather than who to vote in.
He thinks he's a trained hypnotist(hypnosis is total baloney) and he thinks he has awesome persuasion skills. Oh by the way he thinks that Trump has awesome persuasion skills as well.
I don't think there's much analysis that needs to be done for the Trump phenomenon. He is a narcissistic douche, exuding "success" according to the contemporary American standards. The mass has been completely brainwashed for the past decades, with regards to what happiness and success looks like. Case closed.
There are no magical persuasion skills at play here.
That "narcissistic douche" just overran the Republican Party, and you doubt that he's persuasive? That's an interesting view.
Also, for future reference, things that should make your alarm bells go off:
a) something works on someone only when you describe it to that someone
b) something works only on some people, not all of them and you don't know why.
EDIT: some people didn't understand that what I'm implying with the above points is that hypnosis is more akin to the placebo effect than anything else(altered state of mind etc).
But no hypnotist says that hypnosis is placebo!!!
I totally agree that it is.
And as with all other evidence around it, I agree that the "altered state of mind" part is total baloney.
If you have evidence to the contrary please share, thanks.
IMHO, there are some flaws in your analysis.
Your only claim is that Trump is successful by today's standard. You're implying that's the reason for his success and not his "persuasive skills" and you don't mention anything else, but you are saying "case closed" as if these words are enough.
So what are you saying?
In fact, by today's standards, to have success one very important ingredient is to have persuasion skills, also known as salesmanship. Many of us, software developers are sadly not good at salesmanship, but at least we can recognize it when we see it. And personally I think Trump has it, even if his style is obnoxious.
That he has skills only because of today's standards, that may be true, but I wouldn't be so sure of causality: are today's standards responsible for Trump's success, or has Trump adapted to today's standards? I guess we'll never know.
My problem with your argument is that it seems you're considering Trump to be unskilled. I think that's a mistake and if I were in Trump's shoes, that's exactly how I'd like for people like us to think, because he's not the kind of man leaning towards dialog, strategies or cooperation, but rather the kind that does battles and in battles you want to be an asshole (people love assholes in battles, because they make a good show and supposedly show "strength"). And also you want to be underestimated.
To everything else you're saying: if you think Trump's past displays awesome management skills and strategy, well ok. We just disagree I guess?
Personally, to people like Trump, I wouldn't even trust them with carrying out the simplest of tasks. If you think he has achieved much, I'd refer you to his family's wealth and connections. If you still disagree, then we just agree to disagree.
There is a lot more to the man. He seems a simpleton on the face of it. He thrives on people underestimating him.
Yet everything points towards him being an excellent player of the "Game of Thrones".
Whether you think him an idiot or not - he is one of the best strategists I have ever seen.
That said, the CIA is no ordinary hypnotist.
If you have evidence that suggests, or better yet proves, otherwise please paste a link.
EDIT: lately it's become apparent to me that whenever you ask for citation, people downvote you. People, just because you disagree you don't have to downvote. Just offer some evidence to what you're supporting.
Here's an excerpt of the declassified MK ULTRA reports released by Freedom of Information Act in 2001 (as well as parts released previously), and printed in Lapham's Quarterly <http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/spies/new-york-state-mind>:
> H experimentation, February 10, 1954
> The group of five subjects appeared on schedule. A posthypnotic of the night before (pointed finger, you will sleep) was enacted. Mses. [redacted] and [redacted] immediately progressed to a deep hypnotic state. [Redacted] was then instructed (having previously expressed a fear of firearms in any fashion) that she would use every method at her disposal to awaken [redacted] (now in a deep hypnotic sleep), and failing this, she would pick up a pistol nearby and fire it at [redacted]. She was instructed that her rage would be so great that she would not hesitate to “kill” [redacted] for failing to awaken.
> [Redacted] carried out these suggestions to the letter, including firing the (unloaded pneumatic) gun at [redacted] and then proceeding to fall into a deep sleep. After proper suggestions were made, both were awakened and expressed complete amnesia for the entire sequence. [Re- dacted] was again handed the gun, which she refused (in an awakened state) to pick up or accept from the operator. She expressed absolute denial that the foregoing sequence had happened.
I believe that counts as doing something against ones will.
Lapham had a widely distributed issue titled "Spies", I recall, in which the linked article (or a variant of it) appeared.
Here is a Gizmodo article: http://gizmodo.com/project-mkultra-one-of-the-most-shocking-... and wired: http://www.wired.com/2010/04/0413mk-ultra-authorized/
There are a lot of other reputable news agencies confirming the same.
The NY Times even hosts the exceptionally well written report of the government here: https://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/13inmate_Proje...
There is also the 1999 "based on a true story" called the Sleep Room, which I gather is quite accurate (but obviously not proof in itself).
I hope you find the above interesting, if not persuasive, evidence of hypnosis.
As far as I can see there's nothing new here, other than the usual super-secret 3-letter agency experiments, full of material for great spy movies but thin on substance or evidence. I think you'd agree that the same quality of evidence is abundant for aliens, area 51 and all that.
>I believe that counts as doing something against ones will.
Um nope :)
Hypnotize someone and instruct them to do some kind of self-harm. Jump off a roof. Shoot themselves or whatnot. It won't happen :D
So maybe I wasn't clear earlier. I am aligned with the scientific consensus at this point. And that, at the moment, is that this is hocus-pocus, placebo effect and the usual trait of humans that they need an excuse to justify actions that would usually never do. You know, kinda like "oh no, the alcohol did it!"
Maybe we'll have stronger evidence in the future, but right now it's all smoke. Nevertheless, interesting.
cheers
People can certainly be compelled to do things they would not otherwise do by what people would ordinarily call hypnosis. The focus on harm brings MK ULTRA to mind. However, a more generic definition is widely documented in the medical literature, see e.g.
The Prefrontal Cortex and Suggestion: Hypnosis vs. Placebo Effects. <http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00...
Self-harm may not be possible, as you say. Given the the nature of hypnotic suggestion, I speculate it is possible to suggest a separation of the physical self from the harm, and in that way trick someone into self harm. Particularly when combined with mind-altering drugs like LSD. But I've no evidence other than the reports linked.
The MK ULTRA report was read into evidence at Senate hearings because the truth of the report indicated abominable and deplorable practices. Nobody has, in spite of powerful incentives to do so, denied the truth of these reports. That ought to be a compelling indicator, IMHO.
Though I did not see an article discussing harm, dozens of articles on PubMed describe the effects of hypnosis (versus placebo).
I feel like your standard may be practically unattainable, meaning one must ask: What sort of evidence would convince you?
So all bets(and my opinions) are off, when LSD enters the game :)
I was only discussing pure hypnosis, so I can concede whatever you want if you put LSD into the discussion.
My standards are a bit high, but not unattainable. In general, I stick to what is the current scientific consensus. I appreciate any research in all directions, but until that research produces tangible and specific results, I'll abstain.
Mostly because I've seen what happens when people run wild with their assumptions and imagination. e.g. homeopathy, various other medical conditions(leaky gut syndrome) and other less worrying stuff, like aliens or super-secret technology.
Add on top of it various funny facts, like that CIA has also experimented with telekinesis, telepathy, etc and all kind of crazy loony-baloney that, of course, resulted to nothing, and you've got an explanation about my strong stance against extraordinary claims.
Also keep in mind, just at the back of you head, that no government agency that sunk gazillions of dollars into crazy shit, would like to admit that it was all for nothing. Ain't saying that it's all fabrication, but if it were... it wouldn't be the first time. Better to get caught doing "despicable" acts, rather than spending tax dollars that amounted to nothing. And of course, don't forget that you must terrify your enemies.
My 2 cents, and I'm off for now. See you later.
Cheers
Trump basically "primaried" his way to the nomination by going hard right to appeal to the Republican talk-radio base. He'll lose of, course, in the general, but that's the basic strategy of winning any Republican nomination. Many, many Republicans have won their local primaries only to lose in the general.
He's never going to lose the hard right republicans to hillary so he doesn't have much to lose by completely flipping on a lot of issues
Cruise on by the National Review or Red State and it's all panic and doom and gloom and "#nevertrump".
From that, I would take that firing up your base (and thus making the other side dislike you more) is more effective than being moderate and trying to appeal to both sides.
No more so than the rest of the world's distaste for the US system. Everyone else can elect a government in a couple months or even weeks. We're sick of hearing about your pretty little mini-elections. Just get on with it!
And I cannot be the only one here who's ears bleed every time I hear some pundit talk of the "black vote" or how evangelicals have this or that opinion. I see some of the CNN pundits, many of which are actually Canadian, flinch every time they are fed such lines. The American political obsession with racial and religious categories is just creepy.
I would say it doesn't get talked about on TV.