POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[Ben E Lou]

We have only one Republican left, and (sorry Bernie supporters,) the Democratic race is essentially over as well, so I figured it's time for one consolidated thread.

[Ben E Lou]

[PilotMan]

The media are going to drive this as a neck and neck race no matter what.

[CraigSca]

I have to say, seeing that Sanders won't give up, this has to be up there with "worst possible scenarios" for Hillary, especially with the "it's my turn" narrative that's formed around her.

[panerd]

Sorry about the size.

[digamma]

We won't see good state polling for a while, but I wonder if Johnson could make headway in some states like Utah where Trump has really high unfavorables. We haven't had a third party get a real electoral college vote in my lifetime.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

After seeing that and imagining people's responses, reading this was amusing:

Still panicked about Donald Trump? Don’t be - The Boston Globe

[ISiddiqui]

Nate Silver actually analyzed why Clinton and Trump are neck and neck and concluded that a lot of it are Sanders' supporters who recently decided to answer poll questions as undecided rather than they'd vote Clinton in the two person race (as they seemingly did until recently).

The Hidden Importance Of The Sanders Voter | FiveThirtyEight

In the Fox News poll, only 30 percent of independents went for Clinton, and in the SurveyMonkey poll, just 36 percent did. But both surveys showed a large pool of undecided independents, potentially the Sanders voters that YouGov identified.

It appears that as Sanders is clearly about to lose, the Sanders supporters' unfavorable views of Clinton have spiked (from about ~54% unfavorable in mid-April to ~62% now). That will likely change when Sanders is actually eliminated and backs Clinton.

[Ben E Lou]

Similarly, Trump's negatives within the GOP almost certainly spiked right around the time that Cruz and Kasich abandoned ship. Since then, Trump has put some energy into reminding conservatives how much they hate HRC, and that has affected those numbers as well. He has moved some #NeverTrump to #NeverHillary, but I would also suspect that he's gone about as far as he can go there.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Nate Silver actually analyzed why Clinton and Trump are neck and neck and concluded that a lot of it are Sanders' supporters who recently decided to answer poll questions as undecided rather than they'd vote Clinton in the two person race (as they seemingly did until recently).

The Hidden Importance Of The Sanders Voter | FiveThirtyEight



It appears that as Sanders is clearly about to lose, the Sanders supporters' unfavorable views of Clinton have spiked (from about ~54% unfavorable in mid-April to ~62% now). That will likely change when Sanders is actually eliminated and backs Clinton.

How certain are you that Sanders is going to back Clinton after he's eliminated? Just like Trump's track record makes it hard to know whether he means the things he's said or whether he's just playing the GOP base for rubes and dumbfucks, Sanders' track record is not especially friendly to the Democratic establishment.

His legacy as mayor of Burlington rested on the cooperation of Republicans after Democrats on the city council openly resisted him, and he's spent his time the Senate as an independent. Yes, he caucuses with the Democrats, but this isn't a profile of a presidential candidate who's going to run to the party with open arms after he's formally eliminated.

Clinton getting Sanders' support probably hinges on how hard she fights him on the platform committee at the convention. If there's open resistance to his efforts to drag the party leftward, then there's probably no unity overtures coming from his camp.

[revrew]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Since then, Trump has put some energy into reminding conservatives how much they hate HRC, and that has affected those numbers as well. He has moved some #NeverTrump to #NeverHillary, but I would also suspect that he's gone about as far as he can go there.

I don't think so. I think there's a lot of anti-Trump Republicans, who, over the course of the next several months, may yet be moved into the anti-Hillary voting camp.

I recall how many anybody-but-Romney people moved over to vote the Rom-Com after he wrapped up the nomination. I suspect Trump will benefit from a similar snowball of growing, if begrudging, voter support.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

How certain are you that Sanders is going to back Clinton after he's eliminated? Just like Trump's track record makes it hard to know whether he means the things he's said or whether he's just playing the GOP base for rubes and dumbfucks, Sanders' track record is not especially friendly to the Democratic establishment.
.

Isn't Sanders on record as saying that on her worst day HRC is better than any Republican candidate?

[kcchief19]

The polls consistently show the same percentage of Sanders voters who say they won't support Clinton as the percentage of 2008 Clinton voters said they wouldn't support Obama. Once the race is over, that will change and return to equilibrium.

I'm getting the sense that the RNC and Trump are uniting on a kitchen-sink strategy against Clinton -- just throw everything at her and see what sticks. They seem to be playing entirely to the Republican base that hates Clinton. That strategy failed the last two times. I don't know how you win an election in this environment without playing to moderates and independents.

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by panerd

Sorry about the size.

I don't think there's a chance on God's green earth the Libertarian candidate gets 10%, but it's worth noting that Trump is losing big in any poll with a third name on the ballot. Johnson or whoever gets the nod could very easily suck up just enough votes to tip a close race.

Also, if the Libertarian Party really wanted to gain some traction, would it kill them to bring in a ringer? Johnson is the most respectable name they have it. But would it kill them to find a Libertarian leaning Republican as their nominee? The requirements to run for the party nominee are pretty low -- you need to have a website and pay the membership dues

[tarcone]

Im already tired of the anti-trump, anti-hillary rhetoric.

Its going to be a long year,

[Dutch]

Clown Trump and Corrupt Hillary are setting us up for future injects from far-wing politics to get involved. Both of these people are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water for a vote. And that's all we got left. We are so dumb. We had 300 million people to choose from. We narrowed it down to these two. We're so fucked.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by kcchief19

I don't think there's a chance on God's green earth the Libertarian candidate gets 10%, but it's worth noting that Trump is losing big in any poll with a third name on the ballot. Johnson or whoever gets the nod could very easily suck up just enough votes to tip a close race.

Also, if the Libertarian Party really wanted to gain some traction, would it kill them to bring in a ringer? Johnson is the most respectable name they have it. But would it kill them to find a Libertarian leaning Republican as their nominee? The requirements to run for the party nominee are pretty low -- you need to have a website and pay the membership dues

Well they ran Bob Barr back in 2008 and he did even worse than the generic candidates do. Not only did he pick up zero votes from non Libs but his nmination likely pissed off a lot of hard core Libertarians. But as far as Johnson goes him and Weld (his vp pick) they both have 8 years of executive experience. Sure beats reality star with some general or something.

[flere-imsaho]

So what you're saying, Dutch, is you're longing for the days of an inspirational candidate like Obama, right?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by flere-imsaho

So what you're saying, Dutch, is you're longing for the days of an inspirational candidate like Obama, right?

Well, I never called him crooked or a clown, if that helps.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by digamma

Isn't Sanders on record as saying that on her worst day HRC is better than any Republican candidate?

Maybe. But that doesn't mean he's going to work to get her elected, or that the college kids supporting him will maintain their enthusiasm for Clinton.

Sanders has also said that it's Clinton's job to win over his supporters, not his to deliver them to her. So, y'know...many of them may "come home" for the reason you cite above, but an awful lot of young people just don't care for Hillary Clinton, either.

Different dynamic from the Republican Party which skews older, skews whiter, and still has a hate-on for the Clinton name.

[PilotMan]

Sanders will get on board is Clinton is brave enough to have Warren on the ticket. He will get on board in most cases anyway, and he will be needed to campaign for her if the Dems really want to win.

[JPhillips]

No way Warren should be VP. MA has a GOP governor, so that would make winning the Senate that much more difficult.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

No way Warren should be VP. MA has a GOP governor, so that would make winning the Senate that much more difficult.

That, and you don't want your ideological firebrands in the Prez or VP spots. You want them crafting the legislation that a friendly President signs. Kicking them upstairs effectively ends their long-term ability to press for your principles.

[albionmoonlight]

The campaigns are starting to use snapchat filters to mock each other.

Living in the future is kind of stupid.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Dutch

We had 300 million people to choose from. We narrowed it down to these two. We're so fucked.

Scarier though? That these two were rather clearly the best options among those who ran out of that same 300 million.

That's way more fucked than them winning, under the circumstances.

-------

Sidebar thought though: honestly, off the top of my head, I can't come up with a single "ooh, I wish so-and-so would have run and won" prospect either.

I mean, not without getting into crazy shit like Ted Nugent or JiMGA

[kcchief19]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Scarier though? That these two were rather clearly the best options among those who ran out of that same 300 million.

That's way more fucked than them winning, under the circumstances.

-------

Sidebar thought though: honestly, off the top of my head, I can't come up with a single "ooh, I wish so-and-so would have run and won" prospect either.

I mean, not without getting into crazy shit like Ted Nugent or JiMGA

Anytime I hear one of my friends say that will vote for someone because he (it's always a he) is "just like us," I tell them I want someone a hell of lot smarter than either one of us to be president.

Even though we're on opposite sides of the spectrum, I'm with JIMGA on coming up with a name that I wish were on the ballot instead. Everyone has warts these days. We have fucked up the political process in the country to the point that generally only maniacal headcases want to run for even the smallest of offices. We had a guy here in Kansas City who seemed pretty much on a track for governor resign and completely walk away from politics because his family hated it.

You really have to have something wrong with you to want to be president today. I just hope the something wrong with you is that you're an egotistical jackass and not that you're a raging sociopath.

[flere-imsaho]

The reliance on fundraising is so extreme that the most successful candidates are those who are comfortable with essentially acting as salespeople 100% of the time. Not that I have anything wrong with salespeople, of course, but it just means it's now all a homogeneous game of one-upmanship.

[panerd]

And there there you have it. Give the Libertarians the once in a lifetime chance to possibly poll at the 15% threshold to get in the debates...

Ouch: Libertarian Frontrunner Gary Johnson Gets Booed at Party's Convention - Leah Barkoukis

Boo! Let's get someone in there who can get under 0.5% of the vote again!!!!

[EagleFan]

While on the democratic side Hillary may have been the better of the options (or least worse), on the republican side that asshole was far from the best choice. The problem is that there were too many candidates jumping in that clown car. If there were few candidates at the start he would have been done early without getting any momentum. Think of it like the American Idol vote for the worst group, when there are many contestants it's easy for them to have an impact.

Sad election years with these choices.

[Dutch]

Heh, similarly, I looked at the GOP race like Survivor where the goal early was go eliminate the weak and as the field narrowed the next goal was to eliminate the strong and then you wound up with a bunch of people at the end that you were convinced wouldn't make it into the 'Elite 8' much less the Finals.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

The problem is that there were too many candidates jumping in that clown car.

Actually the problem seemed much more one of too many clowns jumping into a bus and making it a clown car.

A hodgepodge of pseudocons & flawed candidates that revealed their issues one by one.

I will agree that a less crowded field would have likely benefitted one or more of the wannabes though. The less they had to do, they less opportunity to expose themselves they would have had. One by one, those who might have had a legitimate shot and been a halfway decent candidate cracked under the pressure trying to keep up with Trump created.

He was the last guy to crack, and that was more than enough to win in that field.

[PilotMan]

C'mon, Trump has exposed himself more than a Times Square flasher. It didn't make a bit of difference. He's been given the golden ticket to the finals.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

C'mon, Trump has exposed himself more than a Times Square flasher. It didn't make a bit of difference. He's been given the golden ticket to the finals.

This.

[EagleFan]

It's a sad indictment of our society. The same people crowing the most about how "great" that asshole is would be those complaining/mocking the most if some reality show douchebag was the nominee of the other party.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

C'mon, Trump has exposed himself more than a Times Square flasher. It didn't make a bit of difference. He's been given the golden ticket to the finals.

Trump only slipped up significantly a couple of times during the whole campaign afaic. The rest of the time he was, basically, a kinder & gentler version of me.

Granted, he eventually slipped right off the cliff with me and crashed onto the rocks below, but on the whole was still one of the most appealing candidates in terms of statements & positioning I've seen in a very long time.

Honestly, quite possibly in my entire lifetime.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

It's a sad indictment of our society. The same people crowing the most about how "great" that asshole is would be those complaining/mocking the most if some reality show douchebag was the nominee of the other party.

So take someone like Clooney, who comes from a well respected political family. Who has been involved in a great number of civic activities and who has very definite political opinions. He's well liked, well dressed, well spoken, has a very balanced and well respected wife and yet he'd be vilified, written off, shouted down and treated like a complete joke by those who think Trump is the great savior of America.

Reason number #1,345 why the vacuous support Trump is mocked.

[kcchief19]

Gary Johnson has officially won the Libertarian nomination for president. The selection of his VP is yet to be determined; Libertarians seem to hate William Weld, but the rest of their candidates are nuttier than a granola bar.

I get the appeal of the libertarian party, but I don't think most libertarians do. I tend to know two different libertarians: disaffected conservatives who believe the GOP is too liberal; and burned out hippies who went to smoke a lot of pot without getting hassled by the man. How these two groups end up on the same page is beyond me.

Then again, I know a liberal who always felt the Democrats were too moderate and went so far to the left that he became a 9/11 truther and an Obama birther, so go figure.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by PilotMan

has a very balanced and well respected wife

We can agree to disagree on this one.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

We can agree to disagree on this one.

Explanation?

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Explanation?

Going to guess:

1. Muslim
2. Defended Julian Assange
(3. British?)

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

Going to guess:

1. Muslim

That's why it's absolutely pointless to discuss these things (and I agree to disagree). Because people are going to make that disgusting straw-man argument.

[cuervo72]

In general I think a lot of people are going to not respect her solely for that. Maybe not you personally, but with all the Obama = sekrit Muslim and Ban All Muslim sentiments? Seems a safe bet she wouldn't go over well as a first lady.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

That's why it's absolutely pointless to discuss these things (and I agree to disagree). Because people are going to make that disgusting straw-man argument.

Or you could've just ignored that comment and responded to my question.

[PilotMan]

I'm not going to speculate on what Jim thinks on whether or not she is respected or balanced. We can simply look to her actions, the groups that she supports.

She was lucky enough to come from a family that was able to get out of Lebanon when Syria was actively subverting the country. You could argue that she's as much self made as Trump is. A high profile lawyer who specializes in international law, and civil rights issues.

I'd say that she is probably more well respected than Clinton is in many circles. I don't think she's ever caused a national or international incident and she's probably never been accused of being unstable or insecure.

By my own definition, it's really hard to argue against anything but well respected and balanced. Which is something you can't say about the Trumps.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Explanation?

Lobbing insults and running away is what he does now, apparently.

[Solecismic]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Or you could've just ignored that comment and responded to my question.

It's utterly pointless. These days, with many on the left, everything is identity politics. If you dare even hint that you don't agree, then the response is to assume it's because you're racist. In this case, she isn't even Muslim. But that's the immediate response.

I didn't respond in full because I knew that no matter what I wrote, that would be the assumption anyway. It just isn't worth it. People have gone so far into identity politics that there's absolutely nothing they would listen to anyway.

You can look up her family on your own. I did when she became a big name and I don't think they deserve respect. You can make your own conclusions. Debate is just too difficult amongst all the race-baiting.

[stevew]

The #chickentrump stuff on twitter is pretty funny

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It's utterly pointless.

So is random unsupported character assassination, but you seem perfectly OK with that.

I'm guessing you don't like her family's anti-Israel views.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by Solecismic

It's utterly pointless.

If you dare even hint that you don't agree

It just isn't worth it.

For years now you've been a whiny bitch in political threads because people call you out on your unsupported assertions. Not because of your views.

I'd tell you that if you can't handle people calling you out on your bullshit, or even just asking you for an explanation of your views, maybe you should stop posting in political threads, but then you'd accuse me of being a typical leftist and trying to silence dissent, so whatever. Do what you want. And keep whining. It's entertaining.

[Dutch]

This thread just jumped the shark.