2016 United States Election

[yovargas]

The last I knew, mass killing is criminal violence.

Not if you were mass killing in self defense.
(*eyeroll directed at the gun lobby*)

[Dave_LF]

God forbid the zombie apocalypse catch you without a full arsenal.

(it would actually surprise me not at all to learn there is a non-ironic ad out there along those lines)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

yov, I certainly agree that weapons designed for mass killing shouldn't be legal, as I am sure you already have guessed.

However, in my opinion it is ludicrous to say that allowing gun companies to be held liable would mean the end of gun manufacturing in America. That is just the kind of scare tactics that the NRA engages in. Allowing gun companies to be held liable would simply help force them to manufacture and advertise their product in a responsible manner (just like allowing car companies to be held liable encourages them to act responsibly). They could still manufacture and advertise hand guns for use in self defense, and rifles or shot guns, etc. for hunting. Maybe they would even be encouraged to invest in smart gun technology and other ways of making guns safer, despite the NRA's opposition. As long as guns are legal (as they should be) and their is a market for them (which there would be), gun companies will continue to manufacture them in America, even without the blanket immunity from lawsuits that no other industry enjoys.

[Cerin]

What are tobacco companies’ liabilities these days? Can a person successfully sue a tobacco company because they got lung cancer after smoking three packs a day for 20 years, or must it be related to the company hiding information about the harmfulness of smoking? The thing is, cigarettes don’t have a non-dangerous use.

Why do non-criminals buy these combat weapons? It is surely not, in most cases, because they’re planning to commit mass murder in their neighborhoods. Maybe for some it’s no different than collecting porcelain pigs or snow globes – they think guns are nifty and want lots of them. Maybe others really believe a time will come when they will have to defend their liberty against a tyrannical government (or zombies). Maybe some like to get together with fellow enthusiasts and shoot at stuff (are there places where people can go to practice with these types of guns?).

I don’t see that pointing out a gun’s features to appeal to one of the above hypothetical customers equates to advocating mass murder. (To be clear, I would support laws limiting gun ownership to single shot rifles for hunting, and single shot pistols for use in protecting against home invasion.)

However, in my opinion it is ludicrous to say that allowing gun companies to be held liable would mean the end of gun manufacturing in America.

Liable for what, is the key, imo. If liable for the results of people using guns unlawfully, then I don’t think it’s ludicrous at all to say that would put an end to gun manufacturing in America. How many multi-million dollar awards could a company survive?

Allowing gun companies to be held liable would simply help force them to manufacture and advertise their product in a responsible manner <snip>

Liable for what? For manufacturing and marketing these weapons? That would be like holding tobacco farmers liable for tobacco-related deaths because they didn’t voluntarily stop growing tobacco, or cigarette companies liable for the same because they didn’t voluntarily stop making cigarettes. I think this is foisting Congress’s responsibility onto the gun manufacturers. If anyone should be sued, it’s Congress, imo, for refusing to pass laws banning this type of weapon.

<snip>(just like allowing car companies to be held liable encourages them to act responsibly).

What are car companies held liable for? Not for deaths caused by illegal or careless use of those vehicles (which are inherently dangerous). As far as I know, they’re held liable when a flaw in the vehicle has caused a death. This doesn’t seem apply to the gun industry. I’d be all for holding a gun manufacturer liable if a gun exploded in someone’s face at a firing range, but that isn’t the issue here.
.

[CosmicBob]

But car companies are required to install safety features that work. You can't buy a new car without a seat belt or an airbag. And the government does safety testing on cars, and research on ways to reduce accidents. They are legally not allowed to do that with firearms. I find that to be ridiculous. What if there was something that you could have on a gun that would make it safer? We can't know, because no one does the research. It's not cost-effective, so the industry won't do it. And the government can't.

[Dave_LF]

Well I've just made one of my two (planned) concrete contributions to the process. Numerous people were loudly expressing dissatisfaction with their choices. When asked which ballot she wanted, one woman told the official she didn't know the party, just "his name". She ended up choosing the R. Would have been interesting to know more about what was going on there, though I can probably guess.

I didn't get exit polled. Maybe someday.

[Cerin]

But car companies are required to install safety features that work. You can't buy a new car without a seat belt or an airbag. And the government does safety testing on cars, and research on ways to reduce accidents. They are legally not allowed to do that with firearms. I find that to be ridiculous. What if there was something that you could have on a gun that would make it safer? We can't know, because no one does the research. It's not cost-effective, so the industry won't do it. And the government can't.

I agree it's ridiculous that gun safety can't be studied. But that doesn't really get to the issue of holding gun companies liable for people using their legally sold products unlawfully. I just can't see a justifying principle there. You have to change the legal status of the weapons.

[Dave_LF]

It's looking probable (though not quite certain) that Sanders will win Michigan. Polling had Clinton more than 20% ahead. If current trends hold it will be, as Nate Silver explains, the largest primary polling upset in US history. Either way, since Michigan awards delegates proportionally, "winning" only gets you bragging rights. The delegates are going to be divided more or less evenly*.

*Edit: Not quite. I don't know exactly how the rules work, but it looks like it's going to be 63 Sanders to 53 Clinton. He needs to narrow Clinton's lead by a lot more than 10 if he's going to catch up, but the fact that the polls were so, so far off here throws doubt on pretty much everything going forward.

[Dave_LF]

And it's called. Michigan goes to Sanders and Trump. I suppose having a choice between a nationalist and a socialist is better than both together.

[Cerin]

It will be interesting to see analysis of what went wrong with the polling.

[superwizard]

*Edit: Not quite. I don't know exactly how the rules work, but it looks like it's going to be 63 Sanders to 53 Clinton. He needs to narrow Clinton's lead by a lot more than 10 if he's going to catch up, but the fact that the polls were so, so far off here throws doubt on pretty much everything going forward.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. I agree it's a very, very big upset and the results will have to be carefully analyzed to figure out where the polling went (massively) wrong but in general the polls have actually been pretty good this election cycle wrt the democrats. I think we should be careful not to discount them too much...

[Primula Baggins]

One theory I've read in several places is complacency on the part of Hillary voters—that many stayed home, and possibly many others crossed over to vote for Kasich.

There are also the disgruntled working class voters, not all of whom are willing to cast a vote for Trump.

[Túrin Turambar]

I also suspect that Sanders' economic message went down well in Michigan, which has probably suffered more economically over the last decade or so than any other state (except perhaps Nevada). As did Trump's, for similar reasons. Still, it's a remarkable win for Sanders. And Trump seems to have bounced back from his little dip last week.

ETA: On a personal note, I noticed Cruz did quite well in a number of counties in central western Michigan. That makes sense to me, as I know the area to have a lot of conservative evangelical Christians. My eldest brother lived for about twenty years in Muskegon, on the western side of MI, and I visited him there in the summer of 2001. The towns to the north had a lot of people of Dutch background who were members of the Dutch Reformed Church, which is quite conservative and evangelical in North America. Vison liked to say that if that was the Dutch Reformed Church, she'd love to see what the unreformed one was like (there were also quite a lot of Dutch-Canadians who were members of the Church up the Fraser Valley from where she lived). I have distinct memories of tall blond people and shops refusing to sell liquor on Sundays up the Lake Michigan coast from Muskegon, in Grand Rapids and (aptly-named) Holland. Those areas have all gone for Cruz.

[Dave_LF]

*Edit: Not quite. I don't know exactly how the rules work, but it looks like it's going to be 63 Sanders to 53 Clinton. He needs to narrow Clinton's lead by a lot more than 10 if he's going to catch up, but the fact that the polls were so, so far off here throws doubt on pretty much everything going forward.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that. I agree it's a very, very big upset and the results will have to be carefully analyzed to figure out where the polling went (massively) wrong but in general the polls have actually been pretty good this election cycle wrt the democrats. I think we should be careful not to discount them too much...

Yes, you're right of course. It was an intemperate remark, made from an intemperate state of mind. It's distressing to see the Methodology fail so badly on my own territory, though. And personally embarrassing as well--I had a number of people ask me yesterday who I thought would win. Normally I respond to that sort of question with something like "well, there is a range of possible outcomes, each with its own probability, and which is realized will depend on how the balance of power between several factors shakes out," etc. etc. This time I decided to pretend I'm a normal person, and just said "Clinton, by a lot." And it didn't happen. The Norns of geekdom again remind me that my participation is mandatory.

[Dave_LF]

It will be interesting to see analysis of what went wrong with the polling.

From looking at the county-by-county breakdown and the exit polls, two factors jump out at me:

-Clinton "only" won black voters by 30-something percent, as opposed to the 70-something she'd been getting in the south. I don't think this is enough to explain a 22-point polling error, but it is certainly enough to explain why Sanders won (by 1%)

-The heavily populated portions of West Michigan (Grand Rapids, Holland, Kalamazoo) went heavily to Sanders, in contrast to what you might expect given that the area is urban without having college towns.

[Dave_LF]

One theory I've read in several places is complacency on the part of Hillary voters—that many stayed home, and possibly many others crossed over to vote for Kasich.

Could be. I considered doing so myself, but when push comes to shove, I'm not quite that cynical (at least not without a bigger payoff). Now, it may be that a large number of likely November Democrats have a Republican candidate they sincerely consider an acceptable second place choice, and crossed over to vote accordingly. The only reason I'd have for voting on that side would be to mess with them, and I'm not sure how one would even do that this year.

[Dave_LF]

I also suspect that Sanders' economic message went down well in Michigan, which has probably suffered more economically over the last decade or so than any other state (except perhaps Nevada). As did Trump's, for similar reasons. Still, it's a remarkable win for Sanders. And Trump seems to have bounced back from his little dip last week.

The eastern parts that suffered the most are also the parts that went for Clinton. But, significantly, by smaller-than-predicted margins. The west half of the state (where I live) held up better in the 00s, and Sanders actually managed to pull off a win in the big cities there despite what a demographic model might predict. Personally, I'm not surprised by that aspect of things. The politics of the area are dominated by religious conservatives, and that seems to prevent people from becoming liberal unless the urge is so strong that they become really liberal (you can see the same effect the other way around in places like Madison, Wisconsin).

ETA: On a personal note, I noticed Cruz did quite well in a number of counties in central western Michigan. That makes sense to me, as I know the area to have a lot of conservative evangelical Christians. My eldest brother lived for about twenty years in Muskegon, on the western side of MI, and I visited him there in the summer of 2001. The towns to the north had a lot of people of Dutch background who were members of the Dutch Reformed Church, which is quite conservative and evangelical in North America. Vison liked to say that if that was the Dutch Reformed Church, she'd love to see what the unreformed one was like (there were also quite a lot of Dutch-Canadians who were members of the Church up the Fraser Valley from where she lived). I have distinct memories of tall blond people and shops refusing to sell liquor on Sundays up the Lake Michigan coast from Muskegon, in Grand Rapids and (aptly-named) Holland. Those areas have all gone for Cruz.

Hey, I resemble that remark! I say that I'm a cultural Dutch Reformed Protestant* who no longer practices, and I'm only half joking when I do. I'm pleased that "my" community rejected Trump, but disappointed that they went with Cruz instead. West Michigan evangelicals tend to be more pragmatic and less anti-intellectual/anti-establishment than their southern kin, and I'd hoped that would lead them to vote for Kasich instead. He seems to fit their philosophy, he's a neighbor, and he's the only one of the remaining serious GOP candidates who hasn't bragged about how fast he'd start World War III.

*If you want to be really technical about it, I'm a cultural Christian Reformed Protestant. The CRC split off from the Dutch Reformed Church a century and a half back over politico-doctrinal points so byzantine that I doubt anyone from outside could even fathom them (the Wikipedia page just states that it seceded and doesn't even attempt to explain why). The two are effectively the same thing, but don't tell them I said that. The modern Dutch Dutch are known for being tolerant and open-minded, but I suspect that's only because the American Dutch don't live there anymore.

[Lalaith]

That's all very interesting, Dave. I'm wondering how Ohio will pan out next week. I was thinking that I can't cross party lines and vote for a Democrat in the primaries. IIRC, I'm limited to voting for a Republican. (I guess I should look that up.) But, honestly, I'm thinking I should vote for the Republican most likely to beat Trump in an attempt to keep him from taking my state. I guess that's Cruz.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Without reading any commentary, my personal feeling is that Clinton's attack on Sanders alleged vote against the auto bailout backfired. She brought that out at the Flint debate on Sunday and followed it up with radio ads. Sanders responded both at the debate and with radio ads of his own by saying (correctly, in my opinion) that she was misrepresenting his position. The truth is that he voted for the auto bailout, but voted against allocating the funds because it was lumped in with the Wall Street bailout funds, which of course he opposed. Perhaps that had nothing to do with the large disparity between the polls and the actual result, but it is the kind of attack that I would like to see backfire. The truth is that there probably are a lot of factors that all combined together in a perfect storm.

Meanwhile, however, it is important to remember that even though Mississippi had fewer delegates available, Clinton won there so big that she actually still won the night. We'll have a much better idea whether Michigan was an outlier or a harbinger when Florida, Ohio, Illinois, North Carolina, and Missouri vote. If Sanders has similar upsets there, particularly in Ohio and Florida, that would be a game changer, possibly.

ETA: Lali, in your state that would be Kasich.

[axordil]

Honestly, Lali, were I in an analogue to your position I would vote for the favorite son. At this point any dropouts from the race help Trump, because some of their support always flows in his direction...and Ohio is a winner-take-all state if I recall correctly.

cross posted with v-man