2016 elections - because it's never too early

[Razgovory]

Yi, are you a bookie?

No.

Okay.  Just checking.  I actually knew a bookie.  He was an idiot, didn't have the cash to cover bets.  Eventually got it sorted out.  Lucky he was a cop, someone might of kicked the shit out of him otherwise.

[Admiral Yi]

Okay.  Just checking.  I actually knew a bookie.  He was an idiot, didn't have the cash to cover bets.  Eventually got it sorted out.  Lucky he was a cop, someone might of kicked the shit out of him otherwise.

I knew a bookie too.  He wasn't necessarily an idiot, but he didn't know shit about making book.  He didn't charge any vig, because he believed the Vegas lines were purposely set so as to sucker people into betting the wrong side of the line.

[Tonitrus]

For all the lauding Kasich has been getting as the "reasonable" establishment candidate, and about his experience...his stands on foreign policy are all pretty terrible.

- Would have stayed out of Libya and left Gadafi in power:  Gadafi was already facing a pretty substantial rebellion...at best Libya would have ended up like Syria (is that better than now?  No, just different, and probably worse at the same time). 

- He said in one of the debates that we should support Egypt's president-general more:  Sure, the alternatives are probably worse...but el-Sisi is also pretty terrible.

- Cuba:  For all the hits Obama is taking, he is right on this one (if perhaps bending over a bit too much).  The human rights angle on holding out on Cuba is completely hypocritical when compared to all the other similar states we deal with (China especially).

[Ed Anger]

Ohio has only one enemy.

[Tonitrus]

Ohio has only one enemy.

The Michigan Wolverines?

[Ed Anger]

Ohio has only one enemy.

The Michigan Wolverines?

CORRECT

[alfred russel]

For all the lauding Kasich has been getting as the "reasonable" establishment candidate, and about his experience...his stands on foreign policy are all pretty terrible.

- Would have stayed out of Libya and left Gadafi in power:  Gadafi was already facing a pretty substantial rebellion...at best Libya would have ended up like Syria (is that better than now?  No, just different, and probably worse at the same time). 

- He said in one of the debates that we should support Egypt's president-general more:  Sure, the alternatives are probably worse...but el-Sisi is also pretty terrible.

- Cuba:  For all the hits Obama is taking, he is right on this one (if perhaps bending over a bit too much).  The human rights angle on holding out on Cuba is completely hypocritical when compared to all the other similar states we deal with (China especially).

Toni, Libya is basically in a worst case scenario right now. As you say, Gadafi was not exactly in control of the situation so it isn't like not ousting him was destined to lead to peace and prosperity. Maybe it would be marginally better, maybe it wouldn't, but we wouldn't have gotten involved which is a plus.

The same goes with El-Sisi (though Egypt is in a shitty situation it is definitely not rock bottom).

I think there is a case that we have lost our way in the middle east by pushing for democracy and/or human rights when we should push for a strong leader that can bring stability and non horrible human rights and be sort of amenable to working with the west. We responded to the Arab Spring by pushing for democracy and against the bad guys. In Libya our answer was anti Gadafi, but we never identified a horse to back. It has been the same in Syria. In Egypt we got elections and they gave us the Muslim Brotherhood.

Much of the Middle East and North Africa is in chaos right now, and I don't think it is reasonable to identify the US response to the Arab Spring as the cause of that, but nevertheless I don't think Kasich is making unreasonable or irresponsible things.

[Valmy]

Toni, Libya is basically in a worst case scenario right now. As you say, Gadafi was not exactly in control of the situation so it isn't like not ousting him was destined to lead to peace and prosperity. Maybe it would be marginally better, maybe it wouldn't, but we wouldn't have gotten involved which is a plus.

Our involvement was done because our Euro allies pressured us and it was hardly enthusiastic. Gaddafi was done anyway. He was a 70 year old man with no viable successor to carry on his cause. It was a matter of time.

I think there is a case that we have lost our way in the middle east by pushing for democracy and/or human rights when we should push for a strong leader that can bring stability and non horrible human rights and be sort of amenable to working with the west. We responded to the Arab Spring by pushing for democracy and against the bad guys. In Libya our answer was anti Gadafi, but we never identified a horse to back. It has been the same in Syria. In Egypt we got elections and they gave us the Muslim Brotherhood.

We responded to then Arab Spring by doing as little as possible. Which was the right call. What it would have been better to bomb crowds of civilians? There was no saving those dictators, things deteriorated too quickly for them.

Much of the Middle East and North Africa is in chaos right now, and I don't think it is reasonable to identify the US response to the Arab Spring as the cause of that, but nevertheless I don't think Kasich is making unreasonable or irresponsible things.

He seems to be engaging in delusions and wishful thinking detached from reality. But I don't think he is doing that, he is spinning lies to discredit his political opponents.

[alfred russel]

He seems to be engaging in delusions and wishful thinking detached from reality. But I don't think he is doing that, he is spinning lies to discredit his political opponents.

Valmy, maybe so. He is a politician running for president after all.

But I remember very vociferously arguing at the time--mostly with Berkut--that we should not be getting involved as we did in Libya (in particular--the events of the Arab Spring in general). We did get involved in Libya and the result can only be described as a total disaster.

I readily admit that it may have been headed to a total disaster anyway. We will never know. Maybe Gaddafi would have held on for a few years and had a stabilish reign around Tripoli at least and by that time he died the Arab Spring sentiment would have cooled. Maybe not.

I just have a real problem with arguing for months for course a, course b is taken and it is a disaster, then a politician says, "maybe we should have gone for course a after all" and it isn't just dismissed as wrong, but delusional and detached from reality.

[alfred russel]

We responded to then Arab Spring by doing as little as possible. Which was the right call. What it would have been better to bomb crowds of civilians? There was no saving those dictators, things deteriorated too quickly for them.

We certainly did not do as little as possible, and I never advocated bombing anyone or saving the dictators.

We did militarily move against Assad and Gaddafi, and the results have been disastrous.

[Valmy]

We certainly did not do as little as possible, and I never advocated bombing anyone or saving the dictators.

We did militarily move against Assad and Gaddafi, and the results have been disastrous.

I don't recall us doing anything against Assad. We threatened him and then did nothing because the Russians swooped in.

And, as I said, I don't think we seriously impacted Gaddafi the whole thing was melting down.

[Admiral Yi]

I don't recall us doing anything against Assad.

We armed the hell out of 12 guys.

[alfred russel]

Also sanctions.

[Zoupa]

5/2 for Trump means you bet 2 to win 5, or get back 7 in total. So to make you indifferent to the bet the equation is $7 * (win probability) = $2, or a win probabiity of 28.6%.

4/9 for Hillary means you bet 9 to win 4. So $13 * (win probability) = $9, or a win probability of 69.2%.

Thanks Dorsey.  I knew my vote not to banish you would pay off some day.

For anyone interested, Paddy Power has Kasich at 20-1 and Bernie at 22-1.

Holy shit. Those are some strong undersetimations for Trump. I think I'll be putting a 100 or 2 on him.

Am I reading this wrong? Trump has very easily won swing states. Sanders has easily won (or come quite cloe to winning) swing states. That translates to republicans voting Trump heavily on GE day and berners staying home.

HRC might win the popular vote but I'm not even sure of that.

[Admiral Yi]

Holy shit. Those are some strong undersetimations for Trump. I think I'll be putting a 100 or 2 on him.

Am I reading this wrong? Trump has very easily won swing states. Sanders has easily won (or come quite cloe to winning) swing states. That translates to republicans voting Trump heavily on GE day and berners staying home.

HRC might win the popular vote but I'm not even sure of that.

No, I think it's about right.

Sandanistas will not stay home for Hillary vs. Donald.

Primary turnout is a fraction of general election turnout.

The fact that a state is a swing state doesn't mean that the primary electorate is a swing electorate.

The Donald still has massive negatives AFAICT.

That all being said, the thought that there is a 28% chance that our next president will be The Donald terrifies me.