Lol, the media fucks Trump once again - he actually ties first on delegates!

Supposedly they flip coins if shit is down the middle?

-PB

Yep saw a video on Twitter where one precinct was decided by a woman in a school gymnasium with no idea on how to flip a coin. #democracy

Farken America lol.

-PB

Cruz in HUGE trouble.

[youtube]ocgEmgXXwF8[/youtube]

Explain?

-PB

Dodgy from Cruz, but even if Trump had been fairly whipped by twenty points he'd still be peddling dumb conspiracies to cover for his weaknesses. This is probably the groundwork for an independent campaign when he loses the Republican nomination.

Never gets old

[youtube]WdEiCGyLlGk[/youtube]

Please tell me people saw the Saturday Night Live sketch with Larry David doing Bernie Sanders - "Bern Your Enthusiasm". Absolute crack up!

By the way, apparently Rubio was savaged in the Republican debate this weekend just passed.

Yep, Christie was taking him to town and Rubio repeated the same scripted line about Obama, word for word, three times in five minutes. I'll post a video when I'm at a computer.

Also, they completely fucked up the introduction of the candidates at the start of the event. Carson didn't hear his name so he just stood in the wings blocking the candidates behind him, and then Trump did the same just to screw with everyone. Total carnage :lol:

Only non-geoblocked link I could find.
https://www.facebook.com/snl/videos/10153895285266303/

Brilliant. Hope a new series of CYE comes out soon :lol:

Chris Christie's smackdown of Marco Rubio:

[youtube]watch?v=HNRNHgi1RzU[/youtube]

Candidates for President of the United States incapable of effectively walking onto a stage:

[youtube]watch?v=rQj0jQReCwE[/youtube]

New Hampshire polls close in half an hour. Really want Sanders to win big to get the momentum he needs in Nevada to cut that 20 point deficit.

Trump is winning the republican side, its all about who comes second which is a toss up between Rubio, Kasich, Buch and Cruz.

Results have been called for Trump & Sanders already. Rubio looks to have fallen away, with Kasich & Christie big improvers.

Who will be the establishment Republican candidate? More unclear than ever!

This is fascinating... and disturbing!

"the judgments that people made after a mere hundred milliseconds predicted election outcomes just as accurately as if they’d had an unlimited time to look at the photographs of candidates".

http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/on-the-face-of-it-the-psychology-of-electability

Few people knew that the country’s thirty-second President was paralyzed. Most knew that he’d had polio, but they remained unaware that he could not walk. Franklin Delano Roosevelt managed to hide the extent of his condition from the majority of the voting public with a simulated walking technique and a moratorium on photography of him in motion or in a wheelchair. His successor, Harry S. Truman, followed an opposite approach to publicity: for his first election campaign, he completed a train tour that covered some twenty-two thousand miles. At each stop, he would make sure that voters got a good, long look at him. Both Presidents lived before the era of televised debates and the constant presence of the media, but they had intuited the exact same thing: when it came to voter support, physical appearance mattered.

In 2003, the Princeton psychologist Alexander Todorov began to suspect that, except for those people who have hard-core political beliefs, the reasons we vote for particular candidates could have less to do with politics and more to do with basic cognitive processes—in particular, perception. When people are asked about their ideal leader, one of the single most important characteristics that they say they look for is competence—how qualified and capable a candidate is. Todorov wondered whether that judgment was made on the basis of intuitive responses to basic facial features rather than on any deep, rational calculus. It would make sense: in the past, extensive research has shown just how quickly we form impressions of people’s character traits, even before we’ve had a conversation with them. That impression then colors whatever else we learn about them, from their hobbies to, presumably, their political abilities. In other words, when we think that we are making rational political judgments, we could be, in fact, judging someone at least partly based on a fleeting impression of his or her face.

Starting that fall, and through the following spring, Todorov showed pairs of portraits to roughly a thousand people, and asked them to rate the competence of each person. Unbeknownst to the test subjects, they were looking at candidates for the House and Senate in 2000, 2002, and 2004. In study after study, participants’ responses to the question of whether someone looked competent predicted actual election outcomes at a rate much higher than chance—from sixty-six to seventy-three per cent of the time. Even looking at the faces for as little as one second, Todorov found, yielded the exact same result: a snap judgment that generally identified the winners and losers. Todorov concluded that when we make what we think of as well-reasoned voting decisions, we are actually driven in part by our initial, instinctive reactions to candidates.

Todorov’s study indicated that election results might owe themselves somewhat to what the Nobel-winning psychologist Daniel Kahneman called fast, unthinking judgment, or what the psychologist Nalini Ambady calls thin-slice judgment: the ability to make any number of social judgments from a seconds-long experience. Students can predict a professor’s end-of-semester ratings from a silent video that lasts no more than ten seconds; employers can predict interview outcomes and hiring decisions from a little more; and voters can predict the results of elections from a judgment that is made in less than a second.

Obviously, many things affect voting decisions, from political platforms to sexting scandals. But if we control for the underlying factors, the research suggests that a thin-slice judgment retains its predictive validity, and it emerges as the single strongest predictor of victory beyond external factors such as broad economic data, like the unemployment rate; personal data, like age or gender; or any other single political measure, like whether someone is an incumbent or how much has been spent on the campaign. In one study of fifty-eight gubernatorial races, the only element that outperformed the thin-slice impression was a combination of two of the political factors most closely tied to electoral success: incumbency status and campaign spending. While we are never forced to vote based on one factor alone, the apparent predictive power of competence judgements reveal how deeply that quick impression may color our evaluation of more serious considerations.

The more data that Todorov gathered, the stronger his conclusion seemed. A few years after his initial research, he determined that even a one-second cutoff was unnecessary—the judgments that people made after a mere hundred milliseconds predicted election outcomes just as accurately as if they’d had an unlimited time to look at the photographs. But the more that his subjects reflected on their impressions—if they were asked explicitly to make a good judgment and think carefully about their choice—the less accurately their responses tracked with actual outcomes, and they became no different than a chance guess. Moreover, he found that judgments of trust and likability were not nearly as predictive as judgments of competence. It was competence alone that had the snap-judgment predictive power.

The findings have held in races for governor, as well as for the House and Senate. They have translated well outside of the U.S. political scene: competence ratings have predicted the results of elections in countries from Denmark to Bulgaria, and international participants have proven just at effective at predicting results in U.S. elections as Americans themselves. Competence ratings that were gathered more than a year before the 2008 U.S. Presidential primaries predicted with great accuracy who out of eleven potential Democratic and thirteen Republican nominees for President would go on to secure the actual nomination—and that’s before many were even officially being considered. That may be, in large part, because non-appearance-related factors are far more controlled in the nomination process: potential nominees have similar platforms within their parties, are operating in similar climates, and so on. Facial competence may then become a more powerful differentiating factor.

In a followup to his initial research, Todorov, along with the psychologist Nikolaas Oosterfhof, examined what features translated to the character judgments that he had observed earlier. Using computer analysis, the two determined that our rankings of faces came down to two principal components: valence, or trustworthiness, and dominance. The first tells us whether to approach or avoid someone, while the latter indicates if that person is physically strong or weak—and it is also the trait most closely tied to the appearance of competence. While the overall shape of the face made the greatest impression, certain markers like the nose, forehead, chin, eyebrows, and lips also translated reliably to increases on either dimension: baby-faced portraits—with softer faces, rounder chins, and higher foreheads—seemed more trustworthy. More masculine faces that were narrower, with more prominent chins and wider noses, seemed more dominant.

Those facial cues, in turn, may stem from a far more basic impulse, since we respond to those same features as children. In a 2009 study published in Science, the psychologists John Antonakis and Olaf Dalgas suggested that, when we judge a candidate as more or less competent, we do it in the same way that children do. They first asked a group of adults to rate pairs of faces, taken from the 2002 French parliamentary elections, based on how capable they seemed. When they compared the ratings to actual election results, the correspondence was seventy-two per cent. The ratings even predicted the margin of victory; the more competently-rated the face, the higher the margin. The researchers then had a group of children play a computer game, simulating a boat trip from Troy to Ithaca, in which they had to choose a captain for the voyage; their options consisted of the same 2002 election candidates. The two sets of responses were indistinguishable from each other: seventy-one per cent of the time, the children picked the election winner to pilot the boat.

There are far-ranging repercussions in judging a person’s character based on his face. For instance, when Todorov and Christopher Olivola compared initial appearance-based judgments with the actual personal characteristics of men and women whose profiles appeared on a popular Web site, they found that people were far more accurate in assessing people’s characters when they had no visual data to go on. Looks, they concluded, were heavily overweighted in any judgment, and prevented people from interpreting other information properly.

F.D.R. and Truman intuited the importance of competence—not competence as such, but competence in appearance. Their approaches couldn’t have been more different, and yet both played directly to their strengths. Roosevelt knew that his face could command respect. But add a wheelchair, or the image of him being carried off in the arms of an aide, and the vision of competence would have been undermined. Truman, on the other hand, knew that his very appearance could instill confidence in his ability, and so he played it up, to as many people as he possibly could.

Maria Konnikova is the author of the New York Times best-seller “Mastermind: How to Think Like Sherlock Holmes.” She has a Ph.D. in psychology from Columbia University.

Narayan Mahon/The New York Times/Redux

The bern has been felt.

The longer the establishment candidate is unclear and they keep fracturing that vote the better it is for Trump.

Bernie up by 20% now :shock:

52% of votes counted for the Dems with Bernie up by 20 points and 27,000 votes

Although he is very well known in neighbouring Vermont for obvious reasons, the Clintons have a good history in NH with Hillary beating Obama in 08 and Bill winning in 92 so the extent of this win is very impressive

Unfortunately, Bernie has no chance. Just look at the super-delegates and how much ground he has to make up in other states. Impressive win nonetheless.

Trump should take the SC primary with this momentum and his previous double-digit lead.

Exciting times in US politics.

It was Rubio, but he ruined his 'momentum' with a disastrous debate. Kasich did well in NH, but that's because he's spent months there. He's not going to get above 10% in another state.

Honestly? I'd still say Rubio or Bush will be the go-to-guy but Trump will be tough to stop with his momentum.

Agree re the Republican camp.

Re Bernie - I wouldn't be too distracted by this result. Really need to wait for the next few primaries - South Carolina and Nevada I think. Much more diverse populations, including many more blacks who are projected to vote strongly for Clinton.

Interestingly, Sanders won across all income levels except for those earning above $200,000.

This article in the Atlantic makes the point that even if an establishment favourite eventually emerges, it could well be too late for him to catch up to Trump/Cruz. That's even more of an issue now considering Kasich's strong showing and Rubio's slump in New Hampshire.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/the-republican-establishments-delegate-problem/433746/

It's interesting yet totally expected. Sanders is absolutely way down in Nevada and SC because of minority voters. However, since his positions are very much in favour of their goals, I think a big campaign could inform these voters to his positions. Probably wishful thinking though.

Happy Kasich did well. Most sane Rep by far and could be a good POTUS imo.

Super delegates don't really matter cause they aren't real until the DNC which is 2 months after the last primary and they won't overturn the people. In '08, most pledged to vote for Hillary but changed their vote when he won the nomination from the people. Hillary only needed like 55% of the super delegates to win but in the end they overwhelmingly went to Obama.

At this point, it's more just about saying to the eventual nominee "I had your back all along" in the hopes of getting on her good side and maybe a cabinet position.

EDIT: The fact they even have the power to do it is extremely undemocratic, but the democratic party would cease to exist if they pulled such a move. I'd expect violent protests across the country

Edited by tbitm: 11/2/2016 09:16:30 PM

Looks like Chris Christie is going to pull out.

If Rubio can get back on track in the next primary, the establishment will get behind him. If not then the republicans are screwed. I just don't see Bush, Fiorina, Carson or Kasich being viable.

Ted Cruz is going well with the evangelical Christian section of the Republican base, so he should sweep the south. Everything else will be a battle between Trump and whoever the establishment candidate ends up being.

Kasich would beat Clinton in a general election, and would be a far better candidate - and President - than Rubio or any of the other Republicans. Unfortunately his chances in the primaries are incredibly slim.

Anyone here have knowledge of US Legal Process?
How can a judge's unfounded belief system affect applications of law?
Moreso, how is the media privy to a judge's ideology?

Anyone here have knowledge of US Legal Process?
Supreme Court Justices appointed by the President for life

How can a judge's unfounded belief system affect applications of law?
Not sure why you say "unfounded belief system". Its more around legal interpretation philosophy. Some judges err on the side widely interpreting or narrowly interpreting aspects of law - states rights, vague wording etc.

Moreso, how is the media privy to a judge's ideology?
Based on previous decisions. Also, based on the ideology of the President who appointed them.

Edited by AzzaMarch: 12/2/2016 11:37:48 AM

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/feb/11/john-kasich-ohio-moderate-voting-record-republican-president-campaign?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

Dunno about that, Trump was winning the last SC poll by 16%, which albeit was 2 weeks ago. It might be higher given the momentum from NH.