POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[molson]

The Trump brand definitely has some value, like the tea party brand did. Except it's mostly a negative value - you're with us or we fucking hate you and you're an ugly bitch (and so forth). I wonder how much staying power that brand will have after the election.

[larrymcg421]

Well Ryan is in trouble for 2020 for sure. He somehow managed to piss off both Trump supporters and detractors.

[Butter]

Originally Posted by Subby

Yeah I don't agree with this. I think Trump's campaign needs to be constantly hammered on the support they get from white supremacists.

After reading that article that you posted last week, I agree with you. He needs to constantly be questioned about his refusal to forcefully denounce these groups and repudiate their support.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Subby

Yeah I don't agree with this. I think Trump's campaign needs to be constantly hammered on the support they get from white supremacists.

I think they should get hammered when they refuse to disavow that support (like when Trump refused to condemn Duke and Pence wouldn't call him deplorable), but the endorsement in and of itself is no more meaningful than when Osama bin Laden endorsed John Kerry. My guess is the same groups endorsed Romney and McCain.

[Subby]

The internals in the new Fox News poll are devastating for Donald Trump.
(typo fixed from previous post). pic.twitter.com/maEWT0ht4h

— Geoff Garin (@geoffgarin) October 19, 2016

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Subby

The internals in the new Fox News poll are devastating for Donald Trump.
(typo fixed from previous post). pic.twitter.com/maEWT0ht4h

— Geoff Garin (@geoffgarin) October 19, 2016

That "change" question is especially brutal. If you're losing to Hillary Clinton on the issue of change, then you're doing something wrong.

[QuikSand]

You guys, @realDonaldTrump has a "five-point plan to defeat Islam" according to @KellyannePolls pic.twitter.com/svt8XmwqPZ

— Matt Wilstein (@TheMattWilstein) October 19, 2016

"Defeat Islam...?"

Might need to alter the rule of tonight's drinking game.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

"Defeat Islam...?"

Might need to alter the rule of tonight's drinking game.

Surely he would get more than 5 points for defeating an entire religion?

[cartman]

All you need is a 4 point plan, for just about anything.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I wonder how much staying power that brand will have after the election.

I can't imagine it's going away. The name may change but the issues where he's spot on correct will remain. And the fight over them will only get more pitched.

I mean, does anyone actually think supporters are suddenly going to think "oh, he lost, I guess we were wrong"? Yeah, I'm not seeing that either.

What they may start to think however is that "maybe the ballot box isn't the solution"

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The name may change but the issues where he's spot on correct will remain.

The only thing many of his voters care about is being displaced in the global economy and having to compete at home with the "coloreds" who get all the breaks.

You're right, that will never fade. At least until education standards are raised in this country.

[Butter]

So, anybody that pays close attention to polling... is it typical this late in an election cycle to still have 10%+ of voters still undecided in so many polls? So many I am seeing in the 538 list of polls add up to around 90% or less between HRC/Trump/Johnson.

I feel like if you're still undecided at this late stage, you don't get to vote, but that aside, it does seem like a large number to me.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

What they may start to think however is that "maybe the ballot box isn't the solution"

I think a number of folks have said as much, including elected officials.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Butter

So, anybody that pays close attention to polling... is it typical this late in an election cycle to still have 10%+ of voters still undecided in so many polls? So many I am seeing in the 538 list of polls add up to around 90% or less between HRC/Trump/Johnson.

Just thinking aloud here ... are those "likely voter" polls (which presumably don't have a "none" option) or larger universes, which could include "none/not planning to vote" figures.

That might account for the disparity pretty easily if that's an option.

edit to add: Oct 2012 the Obama + Romney averages added to 94-95 percent, fwiw.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The name may change but the issues where he's spot on correct will remain.

But he's changed his stance on those issues a lot. He was liberal before running for president, got very conservative when pursuing the nomination, and now claims he didn't actually say a lot of the more aggressive stuff he said just a few months ago about immigration and global warming and Muslims. I brought this up a while ago here, but Trump's supporters don't seem to care that he lied about how conservative he was. (Edit: Or that he's lying now about how about his moves to the center). As long as he's still calling women fat pigs and such, THAT'S the consistent thing, that attitude, his supporters are rallying around.

That's why it seems different than even the tea party brand, which had some fairly consistent and tangible issue platforms. Trump is more about celebrity and an image. Which are very powerful forces in the U.S. I think a lot of people underestimated him because he wasn't running a very traditional campaign, but when you're Trump, you don't need all of that machinery to be relevant.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

But he's changed his stance on those issues a lot. He was liberal before running for president, got very conservative when pursuing the nomination, and now claims he didn't actually say a lot of the more aggressive stuff he said just a few months ago about immigration and global warming and Muslims. I brought this up a while ago here, but Trump's supporters don't seem to care that he lied about how conservative he was. As long as he's still calling women fat pigs and such, THAT'S the consistent thing, that attitude, his supporters are rallying around.

The hatred for Hilary is certainly a rallying point, but she's been the face of evil for long enough now that it's kind of an easy target. I mean we've had, what, close to two decades of her in the public eye to make her a (willing) focal point.

There's any number of people who, given the same level of publicity & a similarly grating personality, could have just an easily been as "inspirational"

[QuikSand]

You can effectively buy Trump/GOP/nonwoman at 21c today. Anyone think that's a good play? I don't like the inherent uncertainty of a debate... but I remain intrigued.

[nol]

They've got a poll with McMullin leading Utah now with 31% of the vote.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

You can effectively buy Trump/GOP/nonwoman at 21c today. Anyone think that's a good play? I don't like the inherent uncertainty of a debate... but I remain intrigued.

Ahhh... okay, I found a proxy market in VP KAINE NO and bought in there at 18c. That's not as fluid a market as the direct ones, but they tend to sort out a differential that large within a day's time. 18 to 22 seems very do-able by this time tomorrow. Or to 14, of course.

[Thomkal]

Apparently the Trump campaign is "very inclusive." And that's why they invited Obama's half-brother.

Conway: Obama's half-brother invited to debate because 'we’re inclusive' - POLITICO

[Butter]

Any chance that the Benghazi mother just stands up and starts screaming at Hillary during the debate? Get some predictit.org odds on that one.

[digamma]

I mean what kind of clown show is this? What advisor is like, "you know what would be great? Bringing in that Kenyan brother. We can infer that even though Obama has a birth certificate he still hates America. Great ratings. Massive!"

[ISiddiqui]

Why do you think Trump is asking advisers anything?

[cartman]

Hillary should have Alec Baldwin at the debate, sitting in the first row, in character as Trump.

[JPhillips]

OMG

Today's stunt is apparently a news conference for the illegitimate child of Bill Clinton to announce a paternity suit.

Edit: I guess that also answers the question of the surprise guest at the debate.

[digamma]

Is it the alien baby?

[Arles]

Originally Posted by cartman

Hillary should have Alec Baldwin at the debate, sitting in the first row, in character as Trump.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by cartman

Hillary should have Alec Baldwin at the debate, sitting in the first row, in character as Trump.

No one as good as that, but she is apparently bringing Meg Whitman and Mark Cuban with her. Actual successful businesspeople?

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

(i.e. laws are important and created for a reason and should be followed, except this law we will ignore that one).

Just curious, when you typed that, were you referring to sanctuary cities or small businesses using undocumented labor or something else/all of the above?

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by cartman

Hillary should have Alec Baldwin at the debate, sitting in the first row, in character as Trump.

Better yet, she should send in Kate McKinnon to do the debate for her.

[larrymcg421]

What laws aren't being enforced? Obama has deported 2.5 million illegal immigrants.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Oops, I mean fully enforced. There's a difference and I think you know it. (right, other people know it right?) If a crime is committed, we expect LEO to attempt to find the culprit and charge them. But for illegal immigration, there seems to be an endemic wink wink look the other way. Probably because we really want them here, depend on them, they strengthen our economy. It's the cognitive dissonance of the law exists but we don't want the law to be playing out as it currently is.

I'm sure there's "wink, wink" going on. But the other side of the coin, is that many Federal agencies don't have the money to do the jobs they are charged with. If 2.5 million people were deported over eight years, that's 300,000 annually. I imagine it takes a heck of a lot of manpower to pull that off.

[JPhillips]

Laws have always been selectively enforced based on the severity of the infraction. As an extreme example, take speeding. Cops constantly let law breakers go without so much as even a warning. Not only do we not have the manpower to arrest and prosecute everyone, nor the space to incarcerate everyone, we don't enforce the letter of every law because to do so would leave us in a police state.

Now you can argue for greater enforcement all you want, but don't think it's something out of character for law enforcement.

[molson]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

Oops, I mean fully enforced.

Trump has backed off on his plan to "fully" enforce immigration law. He got a lot of headlines early for saying he's remove all 11 million immigrants, but he's admitted more recently that he wouldn't really do that. Then he said he was just going to do the "same" enforcement as Bush and Obama, and that he'd "work with" illegal immigrants.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

Trump has backed off on his plan to "fully" enforce immigration law. He got a lot of headlines early for saying he's remove all 11 million immigrants, but he's admitted more recently that he wouldn't really do that. Then he said he was just going to do the "same" enforcement as Bush and Obama, and that he'd "work with" illegal immigrants.

He needs to update his website then:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/immigration

To be fair, I doubt he has any input in to what goes into that website and has probably never read it.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

He needs to update his website then:

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/immigration

To be fair, I doubt he has any input in to what goes into that website and has probably never read it.

Even that's a little softer than when he started. "Anyone who enters the U.S. illegally is subject to deportation," and the proposed targeting of illegal immigrants who have committed crimes. That's not the Trump I remember from the primaries, where all 11 million were leaving and maybe he'd let the "good ones" back in. And of course, he wanted to completely ban Muslims. Now he just talks about vetting them.

And there have been a few news appearances where he's softened it more and said he's just going to do what Obama does but with "more energy".

Trump's Deportation Plan: 'Do the Same Thing' as Obama But 'With a Lot More Energy' - NBC News

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/23/politi...ration-policy/

[AENeuman]

Originally Posted by lighthousekeeper

(I think, knowing how smart of a guy you are based on all your other posts, that you are asking this question rhetorically. That your intention was to convey something like "Hey lighthousekeeper, you are selectively calling for the enforcement of federal immigration enforcement, while ignoring city level immigration statutes, and employment laws. This is hypocritical or at least inconsistent and I hope you can now see this inconsistency". I might be off on that, regardless I will answer your question assuming it was not rhetorical.)

.

well, my first thought was sanctuary cities, but then I thought maybe that was me just making a biased assumption. Not a gotcha, more of a recognition how the narrative has changed from- they are taking our jobs to they are fugitives.

Also, I think whatever the Latin for "cognitive dissonance" is, that should be on our coins: welfare, education, healthcare, immigration, justice system all have an upside down pyramid of benefits

[NobodyHere]

Is it just me or is Chris Wallace looking very very nervous?

[EagleFan]

Is Trump on Valium tonight?

[cuervo72]

Yeah, he went from coke to ludes.

[larrymcg421]

Holy shit. Did Trump really say, "Bad hombres?"

[Ben E Lou]

Some bad hombres.

So far, pretty even. Two different visions, both defending their sides fairly well.

[sabotai]

Not watching because I can't stand to listen to it, but I am following a live transcript of it.

Did Trump really say the sentence: "It's happened bigly." ?

EDIT: And followed it up with "We'll speed up the process bigly."?

[digamma]

Big league.

[sabotai]

Ah, okay....that'd be pushing it, even for Trump.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Some bad hombres.

So far, pretty even. Two different visions, both defending their sides fairly well.

Well a tie is bad for DJT but what debate are you watching? One is speaking in specifics. One is talking about bad hombres. Big league.

[RedKingGold]

[IMG]via Imgflip Meme Generator[/IMG]

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by digamma

Well a tie is bad for DJT but what debate are you watching? One is speaking in specifics. One is talking about bad hombres. Big league.

+1

[tarcone]

HRC stunned by the $250000 open border comments. Pivots to Trump wanting Putin to influence the election. Nice try. Didnt work.

Mellow Trump is punching HRC in the balls. And HRCs responses are not real good.

Interesting so far. I see Trump ahead. HRC cannot win a debate that is mudslinging. She needs to go back to the 1st debate plan.

[tarcone]

I think Wallace is doing a good job. He is holding both to the fire.