Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[The Oracle]

He knows that. He's trolling.

Edit: Nevermind, the fucking moron actually believes it. LOLOLOLOL. Fucking A.

[iam416]

I'm not sure what the homicide numbers were when, e.g., NYC went to "broken windows" policing. I am sure of the homicide numbers since Chicago went to ACLU policing.

SLF:

I agree the race of the officer doesn't matter as I strongly reject the assertions of systematic and intentional racism.

[SeattleLionsFan]

I don't think there are many people who think its intentional racism. In my opinion the allegations that police are "hunting" black people is hyperbole. Where it's not, I think it's probably not true.

I think most reasonable people would say that there is a problem with bias that is somewhere between unconscious and conscious.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I'm not sure what the homicide numbers were when, e.g., NYC went to "broken windows" policing. I am sure of the homicide numbers since Chicago went to ACLU policing.

SLF:

I agree the race of the officer doesn't matter as I strongly reject the assertions of systematic and intentional racism.

There's some debate over whether NYC's adoption of 'broken windows' is responsible for the drop in crime rates there. Even before police took on the new tactic, the economy was rebounding and poverty rates were falling. I understand that most cities that didn't adopt 'broken windows' also saw their crime rates go down through the 90's and 2000's. Maybe not as far as Manhattan, I'm not sure.

http://home.uchicago.edu/~ludwigj/papers/Broken_windows_2006.pdf

FWIW this is a graph showing the total number of homicides in Chicago since the early 60's. Chicago's population hasn't changed much since 1990 but it's about 500,000 people less than in 1970 (the big white flight happened in the 70's and 80's). Still, it may be worth noting that even in Chicago the crime rates are lower than the 1970-1990 era and as the economy improved, crime went down. But Chicago's significantly worse off than either LA or NYC and it's worth exploring why.

[Hannibal]

Electoral map update:
Both RCP and Nate Silver show Hillary winning 272 EVs and Trump winning 266 EVs. Trump needs to swing one more state (without losing any leads, of course). A list of the closest states and Hillary's lead on RCP:

NH: +5.0
PA: +6.6 This is a head scratcher since Trump is +1.8 in Ohio but, whatevs
VA: +6.0
CO: +2.5 I don't get this one. I figured this would be an easy double-digit win state for Hillary and I don't think that Trump is even trying there.
MI: +5.2
WI: +4.7
NM: ???? RCP isn't paying much attention but Nate Sliver has her +5.5 with a 77% chance of winning the state

The race is also fairly close in Maine, but there are essentially only two EVs up for grabs there. Trump and Clinton each have a double digit lead in a congressional district there.

[froot loops]

I'm sure the NRA will come out against national stop and frisk.

When you read the Justice department's reports on Ferguson, Milwaukee and Baltimore there is something systematic and institutionally wrong.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Electoral map update:
Both RCP and Nate Silver show Hillary winning 272 EVs and Trump winning 266 EVs. Trump needs to swing one more state (without losing any leads, of course). A list of the closest states and Hillary's lead on RCP:

NH: +5.0
PA: +6.6 This is a head scratcher since Trump is +1.8 in Ohio but, whatevs
VA: +6.0
CO: +2.5 I don't get this one. I figured this would be an easy double-digit win state for Hillary and I don't think that Trump is even trying there.
MI: +5.2
WI: +4.7
NM: ???? RCP isn't paying much attention but Nate Sliver has her +5.5 with a 77% chance of winning the state

The race is also fairly close in Maine, but there are essentially only two EVs up for grabs there. Trump and Clinton each have a double digit lead in a congressional district there.

If Hillary loses any of these she's probably going to lose more then one and it'll mean her candidacy was an official disaster. Though in the past week it seems like the trend towards Trump has at least halted and maybe even slightly swung back towards her. State polls are usually a little bit behind the national ones.

I could also see Hillary winning the popular vote a la Al Gore 2000 but losing the electoral college.

The debate is gonna be yuuuuuge

[Wild Hoss]

The debate is gonna be yuuuuuge

Personally, I anticipate two hours of Jerry Springer/Email Interrogation....I have better things to do.

[Hannibal]

The debate is gonna be yuuuuuge

I agree.

Each side always speculates that the other side will get creamed in the debates. I don't want to make any predictions in that regard, but if I were in the Hillary Clinton camp I wouldn't be feeling too good right now about how Hillary is going to look on stage for 90 minutes with no commercial breaks.

[youtube]_T8tMk-ZOx8[/youtube]
[youtube]a7zd_OVN7g0[/youtube]

Hillary's entire campaign has been about avoiding unscripted interactions with the public. Trump, on the other hand, has a lot of experience by now at taking center stage and receiving beatings from multiple sides. And Trump clearly understands the concept of "working the refs" ala Bobby Knight and he has already fired some shots in that regard. He won't be caught off guard and get punked like a little bitch ala Mitt Romney. The moderator won't be on his side but at least he'll be ready for it.

[CGVT]

But there is a good chance he'll say some stupid shit like he was saying before his campaign put a muzzle on him.

[Hannibal]

But there is a good chance he'll say some stupid shit like he was saying before his campaign put a muzzle on him.

Indeed. That's why I don't want to make any predictions.

[Wild Hoss]

Hillary has probably a month of days being grilled on The Hill, not to mention the fact she's already been through the primary process as a candidate...twice. 90 minutes on TV is nothing.

Her biggest concern is The Trump Curve; the fact that he's said so much idiotic, inflammatory shit that everybody has built up an immunity to it and doesn't really listen to what he says anymore. As a result, she is the only one with anything to lose, or to prove.

[froot loops]

I think she'll be OK in the debate, she'll be competent. I think the number 1 concern for Clinton is not sounding like Al Gore did in the first debate in 2000, when Trump says some crazy, you can't sigh.

[froot loops]

One thing to remember Presidential debates is the debate is only half over when the 90 minutes is up. How the surrogates perform for the candidate after the debate is almost nearly as important.

[Hannibal]

Hillary has probably a month of days being grilled on The Hill, not to mention the fact she's already been through the primary process as a candidate...twice. 90 minutes on TV is nothing.

I'd argue that she has essentially been through the primary process only once. This year barely counts as one. It was a rigged game from the beginning and she still didn't win decisively. Her opponent was a hunched over old, totaly uncharismatic Communist who ran a nice, gentle campaign that never took her to task on anything. On the rare occasion that she got challenged, she didn't react very well...

[youtube]dC4Pvm6Oj4A[/youtube]