2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Admiral Yi]

Corey Booker.  Michael Bloomberg.

[Berkut]

So this is a true story.

I am playing a game of Triumph of Chaos, a card driven wargame based on the Russian Civil War.

The game is early, and nobody has any advantage yet.

I make a particular move. And the conversation goes like this:

Opponent: You should not do that.
Me: Why not?
Opponent: If you do that, I can do this. Which will then let me attack you. And if I win that attack, I almost certainly win the game.
Me: Yes, but I know that, and I also know that if you make that attack and fail, you will almost certainly lose the game.
Opponent: But why risk the game?
Me: It is not a risk at all, since I don't think you will make the attack, since you only have a 1/3 chance of winning. So you won't make the attack anyway, which makes my initial move safe. Why would you take a 1/3 shot at winning, when the penalty is losing in a game that presumably is still 50-50?

I make the moves, he makes the attack, and gets his 1/3rd result. Game over.

"See, I told you you should not have done that!"

I had a very similar interaction with you in a languish TNW game.

I rather doubt that - although the odds are very different in a multi-player game. A 50-50 shot to win a 5 player game is often a good bet...

It was a 1/6 chance that Habs would win on a die roll. You decided that I should be the one to discard a card to make the chance 0/6. I declined. Habs won the roll at which point you blamed me for the loss.

Ahhh, right. Not at all the same then, and that mechanic is a well known part of TNW gameplay.

Taking a 1/6 chance at losing the game in order to save a card is in fact a foolish move. The card cannot possibly be worth 1/6th of the game.

[dps]

chelsea clinton

maybe the DNC hasn't learned yet.

I consider it a 50/50 proposition that the Democrats will find anything wrong with their own behavior and policies as a result of this election, and if they do decide that part of their loss was their own fault, it's still just 50/50 that they'll come up with the right solution.  I mean, I don't know the right solution, and I reckon I'm smarter than the Democratic leadership, so why would I expect them to figure it out?

The solution is to nominate someone with charsima and without thrity years of baggage.

It's more complicated than that.  To look at just one issue, trade:  clearly there is still a lot of protectionist sentiment among traditional blue-collar Democratic voters, which Trump tapped into this year.  Going protectionist would help get those voters back, and please the far-left wing of the party leadership--but it risks loosing a lot of people are, well, like a lot of the posters here--well educated, reasonably well-off white collar workers and professionals.  Sure, the GOP isn't going to be pro free-trade under Trump, so those folks aren't going to vote Republican in 2020--but they just might stay home on election day.

[The Minsky Moment]

John McCain and Romney must feel crappy now.  They run decent honorable campaigns as people with real skills and experience and go down to defeat only to watch Mr. Celebrity Apprentice serial casino bankrupter waltz in the Oval Office.  Life ain't fair.

[Grey Fox]

John McCain and Romney must feel crappy now.  They run decent honorable campaigns as people with real skills and experience and go down to defeat only to watch Mr. Celebrity Apprentice serial casino bankrupter waltz in the Oval Office.  Life ain't fair.

They had to face a charismastic black man.

Orangeman had Clinton 3rd mandate.

[LaCroix]

so, would bernie have won this after all? if so, it makes everyone's support for hillary pretty funny

[Valmy]

so, would bernie have won this after all? if so, it makes everyone's support for hillary pretty funny

I supported Hillary because I hated what Bernie stood for. Isn't that why you normally would support a candidate?

[Valmy]

Only Valmy's WC football taint is real.

WC? Dude it is the Euro.

[Valmy]

Trump got 53% of the white women voters? Wow.

Trump was right. When you are a celebrity they will let you do anything

[LaCroix]

so, would bernie have won this after all? if so, it makes everyone's support for hillary pretty funny

I supported Hillary because I hated what Bernie stood for. Isn't that why you normally would support a candidate?

I didn't like it either and cheered when bernie crashed. it's just kinda funny that in the end, he may have been able to win. he and trump were the real change candidates. hillary tried (and failed) to send the message she was about change, too.

[Caliga]

How could anyone seriously buy the message that Hillary was about 'change'?

[mongers]

I wonder how many votes the Trans-toilet controversy garnered for the republicans? 

[Maximus]

Ahhh, right. Not at all the same then, and that mechanic is a well known part of TNW gameplay.

Taking a 1/6 chance at losing the game in order to save a card is in fact a foolish move. The card cannot possibly be worth 1/6th of the game.

The question isn't whether a card should be tossed, but who should toss it. You also did not toss a card to save the game.

[LaCroix]

How could anyone seriously buy the message that Hillary was about 'change'?

well, they didn't buy her at all.

the change thing might be overstated, though, but I remember it being a theme addressed to the crowd in philadelphia

[mongers]

Classic languish response, some posters trying to comprehend a hairy political outcome have to resort to analogies based on an obscure boardgame.