POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[RainMaker]

I don't think it's about making overtly racist comments. I think it's toward a group of people (mainly of a younger generation) who seem to think everything and everyone is racist. It's stuff like this.

Gap Pulls Ad Called 'Racist,' Apologizes to Critics - ABC News
Sprint pulls ad featuring white woman calling T-Mobile ‘ghetto’. Do we see a trend yet? - The Washington Post
MSNBC Host Says 'Star Wars' Is Racist Because Vader Is a 'Black Guy'

Just a tiny sampling. You can head over to Huffington Post and I'm sure you'll find a dozen other things in today's culture that is totally racist.

I think there is a middle ground where you can point out the guy who's flying a confederate flag on his block in the Pacific Northwest is probably racist but having a black person play a villain in a movie isn't racist.

[nol]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That's not how I interpreted his statements. I thought he was saying that we are quick to throw that word around and have changed the definition of it. If you don't like someone's politics, taste in movies, etc you're a racist. The word has lost a lot of meaning.

I didn't think he was saying that lynching people wasn't racist because some people in the 30's wouldn't think of it that way.

He was saying that there wasn't as much "PC" backlash against saying those things in the 30s and 40s (which he misses) because many of the people offended by those statements could not speak up for fear of being lynched. Or vote. Emmett Till was born 11 years after Clint Eastwood.

What is so powerful about the word racist? If you think people should be treated differently based on race, racist is the word for that. If I am more likely to cross the street when I see a black homeless person than when I see a white homeless person, the consequences are relatively benign but it is a racist behavior. Once you start to let racist thoughts and ideas influence government policy (and try to tap-dance around the fact that racial animus is the driving factor behind such policies) then it's a problem for everyone.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by nol

If you think people should be treated differently based on race, racist is the word for that.

That definition makes anyone who supports affirmative action a racist. Like I said, the broader you folks make the definition, the less the word means.

[miked]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I don't think it's about making overtly racist comments. I think it's toward a group of people (mainly of a younger generation) who seem to think everything and everyone is racist. It's stuff like this.

Gap Pulls Ad Called 'Racist,' Apologizes to Critics - ABC News
Sprint pulls ad featuring white woman calling T-Mobile ‘ghetto’. Do we see a trend yet? - The Washington Post
MSNBC Host Says 'Star Wars' Is Racist Because Vader Is a 'Black Guy'

Just a tiny sampling. You can head over to Huffington Post and I'm sure you'll find a dozen other things in today's culture that is totally racist.

I think there is a middle ground where you can point out the guy who's flying a confederate flag on his block in the Pacific Northwest is probably racist but having a black person play a villain in a movie isn't racist.

I think the funniest thing about the Sprint one was the CEO tweeting "Not meant to offend anyone" when it was probably going offend a good chunk. The other ones are stupid, but I thought everyone was aware that calling something "ghetto" had inherent racist undertones. I'm not even that PC...

[mckerney]

NH: Clinton 47, Trump 32
MI: Clinton 41, Trump 32
PA: Clinton 49, Trump 38

New state polling today. Trump likely doesn't have a path to victory that doesn't include winning PA.

[AENeuman]

I would say the most significant change since 30's and 40's is now we give the benefit of the doubt first to the person on the receiving end. If one feels that the comment is racist towards them, it's racist. If one feels like it's sexual harassment towards them, it is. If one feels like they are being bullied, they are. Dismissing someone's feelings is the power/privilege move, not the words that caused it.

Of course many of those claims may be a misunderstanding or unintended or made up. The fact that we now say your intention does not Trump my reaction does put us all on notice. But our right to say what we want does not take another's right to hear what they want.

So I guess, combine that with shrinking income, dysfunctional Supreme Court rulings and flacid demographic growth, you are going to get a lot of grumpy old men feeling stiffed.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by mckerney

New state polling today. Trump likely doesn't have a path to victory that doesn't include winning PA.

He probably also has to win Michigan and Virginia too, right?

538 assumes the race will tighten in their formula but they have Clinton with a 92% chance of winning in the "now-cast" which is how things would play out if the election was today. Can't remember seeing polls shift so fast.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Can't remember seeing polls shift so fast.

Trump has made some really horrible decisions really quickly, and that's catapulting off Clinton's post-convention bounce.

[RainMaker]

So........Trump's wife may have been an illegal immigrant.

Gaps in Melania Trump's immigration story raise questions - POLITICO

[ISiddiqui]

Oh, irony!

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So........Trump's wife may have been an illegal immigrant.

Gaps in Melania Trump's immigration story raise questions - POLITICO

Starting to get personal, probably get Trump to go rogue. It would be ironic though.

I wonder if the Dem has all these little stories lined up for release every other day till election day.

[Ben E Lou]

Leavin' this right here for November...

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

So........Trump's wife may have been an illegal immigrant.

Gaps in Melania Trump's immigration story raise questions - POLITICO

wow and even was in this country on the type of visa Trump has vowed to do away with. The irony indeed. Feel bad for Melania being dragged through the mud though.

[mckerney]

Donald Trump Never Saw 'Top Secret' Iran Video: Campaign - ABC News

"I'll never forget the scene this morning," Trump told a crowd Wednesday in Daytona, Florida, just after describing his challenger, Hillary Clinton, as a liar. "Iran, I don't think you've heard this anywhere but here. Iran provided all of that footage, the tape of taking that money off that airplane, right? $400 million in cash."

Trump continued: "Now here's the amazing thing. Over there where that plane landed, top secret, they don't have a lot of paparazzi. You know, the paparazzi doesn't do so well over there, right? And they have a perfect tape done by obviously a government camera, and the tape is of the people taking the money off the plane, right? That means that in order to embarrass us further, Iran sent us the tapes, right? It's a military tape. It's a tape that was a perfect angle, nice and steady. Nobody getting nervous because they're going to be shot because they're shooting a picture of morning pouring off a plane."

Trump's campaign told ABC News today that Trump was referencing a video he'd seen on Fox News of the American prisoners released in Geneva. However, a campaign spokesman could not explain why the images he described did not match the Fox News video.

After his campaign admitted that the video he talked about didn't exist he described watching it again at another rally today.

I do respect Trump's ability to be able to tell it was obviously a government camera though

[whomario]

Now read that statement in the voice of your favorite standup comedian

"Over there where that plane landed, top secret, they don't have a lot of paparazzi. You know, the paparazzi doesn't do so well over there, right?"

I mean, that´s an easy laugh in any context.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

wow and even was in this country on the type of visa Trump has vowed to do away with. The irony indeed. Feel bad for Melania being dragged through the mud though.

She has spoke numerous times about how she feels immigrants should follow the law. She is fair game.

Melania Trump defends Donald by saying she immigrated legally. But for models like her, it’s easier. - The Washington Post

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by digamma

Certainly an interesting discussion and one maybe for it's own thread. I think the thing you underestimate above is how interconnected our economy and markets are today. If Goldman or Morgan Stanley had gone away, it would have had a ripple effect through the economy, most notably on pension plans and retirement accounts that depend on those banks for trading and liquidity. I mean, we're 8 years removed from Lehman and it is still being worked out with everyone losing other than Weil (law firm) and Alvarez (financial advisor).

The other thing I'd say is that it is a little unfair to criticize TARP for not producing more of a recovery. It was a stop gap and not a long term recovery plan.

I get the criticism that more wasn't done to stem foreclosures, but that's a robbing Peter to pay Paul situation too. Without some recovery on investment pension plans that owned the mortgages would have taken a bigger hit. All really complicated stuff, especially when you're doing it on the fly.

All things considered, I think Paulson and Geithner did remarkable jobs under two different administrations. Things could have easily been much, much worse.

True, probably should pull this out. I'll throw up a new thread and a longer reply when I get some time next couple days. Because this isn't a partisan issue or something that needs to be fit into the 24 hour & on to the next one news cycle.

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

My point was that a white man probably shouldn't reminisce about how things weren't so easily called racist when he grew up in the 30s and 40s.

I thought the interview was kind of fun to see the most bitter Get Off My Lawn old man takes ever. As for the specific quote I don't really see the point in posting it. We probably shouldn't look for solutions to this country's racial issues from an 86 year old entertainer we last saw talking to an empty chair? No shit! (At this point I assume half of Gran Torino was just Clint Eastwood being himself between official takes.) But can't we just acknowledge it's a little racist and agree you can't say things like that today without blowing it up in to a big deal? Especially when in real life actually engaging in dialogue on a mild but passively racist statement has a much better chance of changing a mind than shouting them down and trying to shame them. Heck, that was half the point I thought that quote was trying to get across - certainly not advocating for lynch mobs and turning firehoses on schoolchildren, but saying that compared to stuff like that a lot of what's being protested today is a joke. Everything is relative and people want to feel like they're fighting a huge battle, but clearly race relations are better than 80 years ago, and 50 years ago, and 20 years ago. And a large part is just from older people who still hold somewhat regressive positions die off, like Clint will do soon enough.

On the actual issue, I think it is clear there is an "anti-PC" backlash that Trump has tapped in to, but it doesn't need to be a binary issue. I can hate the SJW's/serial protestors/people who are looking to find something offensive and still hate the people who post in BarstoolSports comment section who are clearly racist too. The list of dog whistles that Cuervo posted is indicative of the trouble. There clearly are people and times when those terms are used as coded insults, but there are also plenty of legitimate times to use terms like thug, inner city, or state's rights.

Edit - btw, also think he'd be equally disgusted with any white person complaining they can't use certain language without being called out. And I thought the worse quote was his one about Hillary being "a tough voice to listen to for 4 years". That seems pretty blatantly misogynistic to me.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Leavin' this right here for November...

Hahaha. I hit embarrassed months ago, but thanks, Trump!

[whomario]

Joel Siegel on Twitter: "NBC poll: Clinton leads Trump among African-Americans 91% to 1% https://t.co/0y4cQmBYWf"

so, who are those 15 intrepid men and women ? (well, mostly men)

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by whomario

Joel Siegel on Twitter: "NBC poll: Clinton leads Trump among African-Americans 91% to 1% https://t.co/0y4cQmBYWf"

so, who are those 15 intrepid men and women ? (well, mostly men)

He's got 2% support from African-Americans in the Marist poll, but he's also down 15 points overall.

Hillary's campaign is currently confident enough to suspended ads in Virginia and Colorado.

[albionmoonlight]

It's funny that Trump is saying that the debates won't get good ratings because they are programmed against NFL games.

I see no reason why their first debate won't shatter all-time debate ratings records.

[JPhillips]

Ben Carson told a good joke about Donald:

"I'm–then hopeful that he will begin to put–to put out many of the stories that I am very familiar with, of things that he has done to help people who have been in very, very difficult situations. You know, he–he feels that, you know, that's self-praising, he doesn't want to do it."

[Thomkal]

Trump: ‘I don’t know why we’re not leading by a lot’ - POLITICO

Let me count the ways Donald...

[nol]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

That definition makes anyone who supports affirmative action a racist. Like I said, the broader you folks make the definition, the less the word means.

Right, anything that favors one race over another is racist. Now, the next step to get past your first-grade mindset is to evaluate whether there is a good reason to favor one race over another. I'm sure that there will never be another presidential candidate who more strongly agrees with the statement "Affirmative action unfairly discriminates against white people" than Donald Trump does, so you might as well fuck that 'anti-PC' chicken while you can.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by nol

Right, anything that favors one race over another is racist.

Yes, that's literally the definition.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by nol

Right, anything that favors one race over another is racist. Now, the next step to get past your first-grade mindset is to evaluate whether there is a good reason to favor one race over another. I'm sure that there will never be another presidential candidate who more strongly agrees with the statement "Affirmative action unfairly discriminates against white people" than Donald Trump does, so you might as well fuck that 'anti-PC' chicken while you can.

I never said I was against affirmative action. Just that if that is the definition we are going by, it makes Hillary Clinton and many others racist.

[Ben E Lou]

Nol has been given a few days away from FOFC to consider if he wants to change his confrontational/sarcastic style of posting.

EDIT: No one specific post, just an entire body of work and multiple complaints from both sides of the aisle about how annoying his style is.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by mckerney

Donald Trump Never Saw 'Top Secret' Iran Video: Campaign - ABC News

After his campaign admitted that the video he talked about didn't exist he described watching it again at another rally today.

I do respect Trump's ability to be able to tell it was obviously a government camera though

Can't his campaign tell him to just stop doing this shit for a week?

[Kodos]

I'm not sure he can contain himself for a week. It's like asking me not to post polls on the forum.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Can't his campaign tell him to just stop doing this shit for a week?

I strongly suspect that a big part of the issue is that he simply won't listen.

[JPhillips]

I think a big part of it is his style. He takes the stage and just starts talking without much preparation. He clearly returns to some of the same themes and lines, but he also talks about whatever happens to be on his mind at the time. Even with the best candidate that approach would lead to a lot of gaffes, and DT certainly isn't the best candidate.

[mckerney]

We're finally getting a look at the unskewed polls this year.

Unbiased Polls - National Presidential Election 2016 - Long Room

Turns out Trump is currently leading Hillary 44.2% to 43.3%.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by mckerney

We're finally getting a look at the unskewed polls this year.

Unbiased Polls - National Presidential Election 2016 - Long Room

Turns out Trump is currently leading Hillary 44.2% to 43.3%.

The best part of that site is they claim to have been correct on 2012 and 2008 but the site wasn't functioning up till 2015.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by mckerney

We're finally getting a look at the unskewed polls this year.

Unbiased Polls - National Presidential Election 2016 - Long Room

Turns out Trump is currently leading Hillary 44.2% to 43.3%.

Uh... and how much bias points should we be giving Long Form, which is clearly a right-wing hack site?

[ISiddiqui]

Speaking of polling,

AJC poll: Hillary Clinton has slim lead over Donald Trump in Georgia | Political Insider blog

The poll released Friday shows Clinton at 44 percent and Trump at 40 percent in a head-to-head matchup, within the poll’s margin of error. It is the latest showing a close race between the two candidates in Georgia, a state that has voted for the GOP nominee since 1996.

In a four-way race, Clinton led Trump 41-38, followed by Libertarian Gary Johnson with 11 percent and Green Party candidate Jill Stein with 2 percent.

Last time GA went blue... it was for another Clinton. But shocking polling here.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by mckerney

We're finally getting a look at the unskewed polls this year.

Unbiased Polls - National Presidential Election 2016 - Long Room

Turns out Trump is currently leading Hillary 44.2% to 43.3%.

They have both FOX and Rasmussen as biased towards the left. I'm so glad this is back.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Uh... and how much bias points should we be giving Long Form, which is clearly a right-wing hack site?

You know what's sad is that at this point, I almost instinctively roll my eyes at anything that has a bald eagle front-and-center with the flag flying behind it. Am I wrong in wanting the symbolism used a little more sparingly/judiciously?

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by mckerney

We're finally getting a look at the unskewed polls this year.

Unbiased Polls - National Presidential Election 2016 - Long Room

Turns out Trump is currently leading Hillary 44.2% to 43.3%.

Maybe I don't understand how they get their numbers, but McClatchy/Marist poll has a 15 point lead (which seems off) for Clinton, how then does this site have her with a .1 percent lead for them?

And going to LongRoom.com what is the first story there-"what a shock, Trump Implosion Stories Completely fabricated by Liberal Media Hacks"

so just how unskewed are these polls again?

[ISiddiqui]

Was this the site that said Romney was going to win 4 years ago?

[Dutch]

I'm starting to become interested in how the GOP will transform itself. A quick review of the Presidency from Lincoln to Wilson shows massive ideological shifts. And it doesn't seem to be people based, but executive and party based. The party, quite bluntly, needs to hammer home that minorities are important stakeholders in their ideals. If they can turn the tide and break the monopoly on the black vote (in particular) then I think we will see an end to the divisiveness that currently afflicts our nation. Hell, even 20% support should see noticeable positive gains that might actually pit the two sides against each other in real cultural change. This 91%-1% imbalance has got
to stop. That simply signals that the GOP has no influence and the DNC doesn't have to lift a finger beyond their current strategy that doesn't seem to do anything but stoke the fires. Right now the center-left and center-right is a white persons game. Until it's a good choice for all Americans, we will continue to hurt. But to be clear, this is a GOP problem, nobody else's.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Dutch

The party, quite bluntly, needs to hammer home that minorities are important stakeholders in their ideals.

To be fair (and this isn't about the black vote, which is even more a tough nut to crack), President George W. Bush tried his hardest to hammer home that Hispanics have an important role to play in the GOP. The base loathed him for it and denied him any push on that front.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm starting to become interested in how the GOP will transform itself. A quick review of the Presidency from Lincoln to Wilson shows massive ideological shifts. And it doesn't seem to be people based, but executive and party based. The party, quite bluntly, needs to hammer home that minorities are important stakeholders in their ideals. If they can turn the tide and break the monopoly on the black vote (in particular) then I think we will see an end to the divisiveness that currently afflicts our nation. Hell, even 20% support should see noticeable positive gains that might actually pit the two sides against each other in real cultural change. This 91%-1% imbalance has got
to stop. That simply signals that the GOP has no influence and the DNC doesn't have to lift a finger beyond their current strategy that doesn't seem to do anything but stoke the fires. Right now the center-left and center-right is a white persons game. Until it's a good choice for all Americans, we will continue to hurt. But to be clear, this is a GOP problem, nobody else's.

Don't have any numbers in front of me right now Dutch, but the Republicans actually had an opening with Hispanics. Many come from conservative evangelical backgrounds and moves there could have won them this election. But Donald "Build a wall, all Mexicans are rapists" Trump quickly stopped that from happening.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Dutch

A quick review of the Presidency from Lincoln to Wilson shows massive ideological shifts.

I mean, I know it's Vox, but:

How Republicans went from the party of Lincoln to the party of Trump, in 13 maps - Vox

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I'm starting to become interested in how the GOP will transform itself. A quick review of the Presidency from Lincoln to Wilson shows massive ideological shifts. And it doesn't seem to be people based, but executive and party based. The party, quite bluntly, needs to hammer home that minorities are important stakeholders in their ideals. If they can turn the tide and break the monopoly on the black vote (in particular) then I think we will see an end to the divisiveness that currently afflicts our nation. Hell, even 20% support should see noticeable positive gains that might actually pit the two sides against each other in real cultural change. This 91%-1% imbalance has got
to stop. That simply signals that the GOP has no influence and the DNC doesn't have to lift a finger beyond their current strategy that doesn't seem to do anything but stoke the fires. Right now the center-left and center-right is a white persons game. Until it's a good choice for all Americans, we will continue to hurt. But to be clear, this is a GOP problem, nobody else's.

It's not an easy proposition. I think first and foremost, it would have to get rid of language that hints at returning to the "good ol' days." The fact of the matter is that if you are a minority in the U.S., odds are pretty high that you think that *today* is the best it has ever been for people who look like you. I read a great article during the primaries that referenced this well...

The Split Between Ted Cruz Evangelicals and Marco Rubio Evangelicals: 5 Theories

Here's the money section with regard to minorities (emphasis mine):

Cruz evangelicals seek to restore an imagined past while Rubio evangelicals seek a reformed never-seen-before future.

This difference is even in their campaign slogans:

Cruz: Reigniting the Promise of America

Rubio: A New American Century

The first point to notice about these differences is that non-white evangelicals should relate more to Rubio's approach. When your ancestors were enslaved, discriminated against in employment and housing, or denied access to the voting booth, returning to America's past sounds unappealing.

(This is not to say that Cruz supporters are racist. If you're racist, you're probably supporting Trump.)

Cruz, on the other hand, is more consistent with the themes heard often by most conservative white evangelicals. These evangelicals also comprise a large voting bloc in Republican nominating contests.

These differences can also be found in their campaign strategies and the arguments they make to voters. Cruz says he can win the general election by getting Christian voters who didn't vote in previous elections to the polls. Rubio, on the other hand, says he can win by bringing new voters who aren't traditionally Republican to the polls. The difference, in short, is between mobilizing non-voters and mobilizing former Democrats.

And, quite frankly, a whole lot of Republican voters really like the thought of "returning to the past." That's not to say that they're necessarily racist in desiring that. Most of them are just blissfully unaware of the message that is sending.

[Thomkal]

Here's a look at Trump's economic team:

Trump unveils all-male economic advisory team - POLITICO

tell me what you see there?-no women, and I'm betting all white. and mostly Wall Street businessmen, with no academics.

[JPhillips]

32%

That's the percent of the Asian vote Bill Clinton won in 1992.


73%

That's the percent of the Asian vote Obama won in 2012.

It isn't just the black vote. The GOP has become a white nationalist party and they've driven away minorities of all types.

[Ben E Lou]

Dubya won 9% of the black vote in 2000, then increased it to 11% in 2004.

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Can't his campaign tell him to just stop doing this shit for a week?

It is pretty clear at this point that there is no one in the inner sanctum that has the courage to speak truth to the Donald and then to stand their ground against the inevitable backlash.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Dubya won 9% of the black vote in 2000, then increased it to 11% in 2004.

Of course McCain and Romney did worse running against BHO. My guess is that Rubio could have had a shot at topping GWB's numbers with black voters. But GOP voters didn't want Rubio. Even before the Christie pantsing he was #3 at best.

[Ben E Lou]

Hispanic vote...

Dubya 2000: 35%
Dubya 2004: 44%
McCain 2008: 31%
Romney 2012: 27%