The 2016 US American Election Thread

[photon]

That's interesting, Kellyanne Conway whom I used to respect said in no uncertain terms that Roger Ailes wasn't associated with the campaign either officially or unofficially.

Roger Ailes preparing someone for a debate with a woman, that's awesome.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

His narcissism drives him to rallies, and his arrogance lets him think he can half ass it and still win. Seems like a losing strategy for debates, but I guess stories from Roger Ailes are what's important to him.







http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us...smtyp=cur&_r=0

This just fits the theory that he doesn't care about this election at all and is just going to use this to spin up a media network afterwards. He's getting Ailes and his experience in the camp early.

[photon]

I think they should replace the debates:

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

His narcissism drives him to rallies, and his arrogance lets him think he can half ass it and still win. Seems like a losing strategy for debates, but I guess stories from Roger Ailes are what's important to him.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/29/us...smtyp=cur&_r=0

I think the ghost writer for The Art Of The Deal summed up Trump's main challenge:

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/21/486924...t-be-president

"One of the chief things I'm concerned about is the limits of his attention span, which are as severe as any person I think I've ever met," Schwartz says. "No matter what question I asked, he would become impatient with it pretty quickly, and literally, from the very first time I sat down to start interviewing him, after about 10 or 15 minutes, he said, 'You know, I don't really wanna talk about this stuff, I'm not interested in it, I mean it's over, it's the past, I'm done with it, what else have you got?' "

Does Trump have ADHD?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...attention-span

[Gozer]

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politi...te/in/12771101

This is a really good column on my biggest criticism of the press.

It seems to me that the media over-learned the lesson of the JFK-Nixon debate.
(Nixon was smarter and impressed radio listeners, but looked awful on camera - so TV viewers vastly preferred JFK)

The press seems so obsessed with anticipating the reactions of low-information voters that they shirk their duty to inform voters.

I wish these institutions had no audience feedback whatsoever for debates. I dislike polls generally, but I abhor them during a debate. You're not covering the audience - you're covering the politicians.

[Gozer]

There is an interesting proposal to have a "stress-test" replace debates.
Candidates assume the role of President for a dramatized crises, and their reactions, priorities, and decisions are tested.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by Gozer

There is an interesting proposal to have a "stress-test" replace debates.
Candidates assume the role of President for a dramatized crises, and their reactions, priorities, and decisions are tested.

Oh man that would be hilarious with Trump. It would make great reality TV!

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Gozer

This is a really good column on my biggest criticism of the press.

It seems to me that the media over-learned the lesson of the JFK-Nixon debate.
(Nixon was smarter and impressed radio listeners, but looked awful on camera - so TV viewers vastly preferred JFK)

The press seems so obsessed with anticipating the reactions of low-information voters that they shirk their duty to inform voters.

I wish these institutions had no audience feedback whatsoever for debates. I dislike polls generally, but I abhor them during a debate. You're not covering the audience - you're covering the politicians.

I generally agree with you here. I found in Canada too that polls often seem to affect momentum and trajectory. There are a lot of people that just want to be on the winning side and are easily influenced by whatever is popular among the majority (or what the press would lead you to think the majority is). It's the audience that demands to be entertained over informed. The people want to feel included and the press is giving them that. Most media companies primary concern is making money like every other business for that matter.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Gozer

There is an interesting proposal to have a "stress-test" replace debates.
Candidates assume the role of President for a dramatized crises, and their reactions, priorities, and decisions are tested.

Have it uncensored and put it on HBO and I'm down. Debates are mostly about avoiding mistakes and not actually showcasing skills and abilities of a President. Debates are mostly about how prepared and disciplined a candidate is, which while important, doesn't really tell you how they'd handle certain situations.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Gozer

There is an interesting proposal to have a "stress-test" replace debates.
Candidates assume the role of President for a dramatized crises, and their reactions, priorities, and decisions are tested.

How about an IQ test?

Trump jokes about Clinton failing the bar exam in DC.

I'd like to see his LSAT score.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by blender

Honest question: have you ever met anyone who actually supports him? I certainly haven't.

I have. In fact, not only do I know quite a few people who support him south of the border, I also know of some folks here in BC and Alberta that are hoping he wins. It's wacked.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

How about an IQ test?

Trump jokes about Clinton failing the bar exam in DC.

I'd like to see his LSAT score.

LSAT doesn't translate as neatly into IQ as a lot of people want to imagine. The concept of a general intelligence is pretty complicated.

I think this would be an awful idea. Gosh, the whole thing is meritocratic enough. Probably best just to guess.

Trump went to Wheaton, I believe, so he definitely has an above average IQ.

Same with Bush, based on his SAT scores, we know that he has an IQ in the 90th percentile.

JFK was tested in his teen years, and scored somewhat below that.

Most world leaders have to be above average in terms of intellectual abilities, but if it got into some pissing match about a few IQ points, the whole thing would get even more ridiculous.

A president also has a perfect social environment designed to boost his IQ. George Bush had Karl Rove, for example.

The problem, of course, is that somebody probably needs a highish IQ to be President, but the position will tend to favour different types of intelligence - probably working memory and verbal intelligence.

[Izzle]

Originally Posted by peter12

LSAT doesn't translate as neatly into IQ as a lot of people want to imagine. The concept of a general intelligence is pretty complicated.

I think this would be an awful idea. Gosh, the whole thing is meritocratic enough. Probably best just to guess.

Trump went to Wheaton, I believe, so he definitely has an above average IQ.

Same with Bush, based on his SAT scores, we know that he has an IQ in the 90th percentile.

JFK was tested in his teen years, and scored somewhat below that.

Most world leaders have to be above average in terms of intellectual abilities, but if it got into some pissing match about a few IQ points, the whole thing would get even more ridiculous.

A president also has a perfect social environment designed to boost his IQ. George Bush had Karl Rove, for example.

The problem, of course, is that somebody probably needs a highish IQ to be President, but the position will tend to favour different types of intelligence - probably working memory and verbal intelligence.

I dont think Trump is smart on any reputable intelligence test. As to his graduation from Wharton School of Business: http://www.thedp.com/article/2015/08...ton-classmates

[troutman]

Originally Posted by peter12

LSAT doesn't translate as neatly into IQ as a lot of people want to imagine. The concept of a general intelligence is pretty complicated.

I think this would be an awful idea. Gosh, the whole thing is meritocratic enough. Probably best just to guess.

Trump went to Wheaton, I believe, so he definitely has an above average IQ.

Same with Bush, based on his SAT scores, we know that he has an IQ in the 90th percentile.

Most world leaders have to be above average in terms of intellectual abilities, but if it got into some pissing match about a few IQ points, the whole thing would get even more ridiculous.

I agree with the limitations you express on IQ and LSAT testing, but shouldn't this be one factor that voters should look at?

They are applying for the most important job in the world. To enter many professions you have to demonstrate many different aptitudes.

You should not be disqualified for having below average "intelligence", but it could be one factor of many that we can weigh.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by troutman

I agree with the limitations you express on IQ and LSAT testing, but shouldn't this be one factor that voters should look at?

They are applying for the most important job in the world. To enter many professions you have to demonstrate many different aptitudes.

You should not be disqualified for having below average "intelligence", but it could be one factor of many that we can weigh.

I don't think it should be a factor stated right out as a qualification. Most voters are obviously of average intelligence themselves.

I think that in many ways it comes out naturally through the electoral race.

Trump, to me, has a pretty average verbal IQ. Just watching him speak makes me cringe.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Izzle

I dont think Trump is smart on any reputable intelligence test. As to his graduation from Wharton School of Business: http://www.thedp.com/article/2015/08...ton-classmates

There are currently only a few reputable intelligence tests. As I said, it's not an issue that you would want to delve into during a presidential election. IQ testing and politics have a really bad shared history.

As well, the issue is considered extremely private.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/op..._1=416629&_r=1

If only the lesson expressed in that article could be learned as a result of this debacle. Sadly, it absolutely will not be.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

It's an excellent summary.

Kind of a weird tone I think, given the context. It reads more like a Democratic ad than a Republican newspaper declaring they're willing to hold their noses just this once.

You would imagine the latter approach would also do more to convince their presumably conservative readership.

(Of course who am I to say.)

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Izzle

I dont think Trump is smart on any reputable intelligence test. As to his graduation from Wharton School of Business: http://www.thedp.com/article/2015/08...ton-classmates

Well, if you read that all the way through, it never calls into question whether or not he went to Wharton, just that he was probably an average student who kept to himself.

[Itse]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/01/op..._1=416629&_r=1

If only the lesson expressed in that article could be learned as a result of this debacle. Sadly, it absolutely will not be.

Hyperbolic predictions of doom have unfortunately been a part of political campaigning for as long as politics have existed. At least as far back as Ancient Rome.

Of course, the problem is not improved by people who want to tone down the rhetoric regardless of whether or not it's accurate.

Trump pretty obviously is racist, misogynist and possibly unhinged to the point of being genuinely dangerous. Sometimes those things are not hyperbole.

"Fascist" on the other hand does not IMO describe him. (It's one of those words that I feel Americans almost never use correctly. Then again it's a mostly European political movement, you luckily haven't really had that much literal fascism in your local politics.)