2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part X

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
Status
Not open for further replies.
Trump pulls ahead of Clinton in Rasmussen poll - Business Insider

160224112545-trump-nevada-victory-speech-780x439.jpg
 
I just don't buy the "have to move to the center" argument anymore. It's 2016 and the numbers are showing this country rapidly moving to the left (and it would be an even faster shift if more people on that side of the equation bothered to vote). People aren't going to go vote for some right-wing whackjob just because the other person is a declared Socialist. The candidates on the far right are literally much, much further away from the political center.

What you're arguing was true in the past when this country was almost completely white, but now? Not so much.
 
Hewson said:
Trump pulls ahead of Clinton in Rasmussen poll - Business Insider
Click to expand...

I get the joke, but obviously FiveThirtyEight rates them a C+ polling firm and they've had a Right-leaning slant for years, even going so far as to conduct polls where anybody on the left is labeled part of the Political Class and everyone else is a Mainstream voter. :doh:

Current bias is listed as R+2, so you'd need to shave two points off every Trump score in Rasmussen polls and give them to Clinton.
 
Last edited:
Just going to throw this out for opinion.

If the democratic primary had an exact opposite result - Sanders winning by 3.7 million votes, 350 pledged delegates, etc... What would Bernie do if Clinton (the loser) demanded that he adopt her ideas into his platform? What would Bernie supporters say?

If he had won by this amount, would he even bring up changing the way the primaries are won? Doing away with superdelegates? open primaries??

I find it really disingenuous that he only wants to change the parts of the Dem primary process that didn't go his way. The shitty parts like caucuses, he's totally fine with.

thoughts?
 
BigMacPhisto said:
It's 2016 and the numbers are showing this country rapidly moving to the left (and it would be an even faster shift if more people on that side of the equation bothered to vote). People aren't going to go vote for some right-wing whackjob just because the other person is a declared Socialist.
Click to expand...

What are these numbers you speak of?
 
The hard ideologues vote in the primaries. That is a certainty. I thought everybody under the sun understood that much. But BM never fails to disappoint in his effort to...do whatever it is he thinks he's doing.

In each party, the 30 million people that vote in the primaries are going to be FAR more on the wings than the 30 million people people who don't. This is the same principle that will doom Donald Trump.

Trump couldn't conjure up enough additional support to win this thing. It's just not going to happen. The most votes a GOP candidate has ever gotten for President is 62 million. And that was two-wartime incumbent GW Bush who was assisted by a cynical swing state plan to stop Adam and Steve from marrying. And Bush got 40% of the Latino vote in 2004 too. And won by just a single state. And that was the only time in the last 6 elections the GOP has actually won the popular vote. So Bush in 2004 was basically the anomaly here as he barely pulled out a win even with some wind at his back.

So, I'll say it again. 62 million votes. Most ever for the GOP.

While Obama got at least 66 million votes in both of his victories.

Generously, Trump got 14 million votes in the GOP Primary. Suppose he'd need MINIMUM 67 million votes to win (clearing Obama's basement), then Donald Trump is gonna need MINIMUM 53 million people to come out of the shadows that did NOT already vote for him in the primary.

I'll say that again. 53 million (or so) additional votes above those who already voted for him in the primary. Minimum.

Who are these people? And how could there be that many of them? Want an idea of how many people that is? 53 million would be more votes than either Gore or Bush got in 2000. And Romney got just 8 million more than that in 2012. And Romney got more of the White vote in 2012 - by % - than Reagan did in his 1984 landslide. And as we all know, Romney still comfortably lost. Mitt was the most mainstream guy the GOP could have conjured up in a laboratory...and he didn't even top W's 2004 number - though it was close - 61 vs 62 million, perhaps suggesting a ceiling somewhere in that ballpark.

The demographics decided this election long before Trump opened his mouth. But since then, he went from being the only guy in the GOP race with a real chance to overcome those demographics and win for the GOP in Nov (because of his unique celebrity appeal) to a non-serious non-starter.

Trump would do well to reach 200 electoral votes (Romney got 206). And he would do well to eclipse GW Bush's 62 million votes. And even if he does, it won't be by many more. I'd think he'll be south of 64 million and lose the popular vote easily. Any path to victory for Trump will involve key victories in all the states the GOP usually hauls in - plus all the big purple states - like Florida, Ohio, PA. Whatever the case, I have not looked into the EC math. I don't see the point.

Yeah, we always hear "you never know". But these elections, retroactively, always scream "you should have known" And we would already know...if we just want to exclude the likelihood of something we've never seen happen. At some point, you gotta look at this like history tells us we should look at all modern U.S. presidential elections (and probably more true before the modern era). You should look at the macro and not the micro. The day to day happenings of these campaigns are useless. The macro view will tell us where this is going. And the macro here is beyond obvious.

And no, I don't give a shit what Rasmussen or another poll says. You can get any poll to tell you anything you already wanted to hear. Trump can't scrounge together 50-odd million people that didn't already vote for him. And Hilary Clinton can. Especially when Willie and Barry (and Liz) get out there and start selling her over the non-serious carnival barker.

I refer anyone to the 2012 DNC speech that Bill Clinton gave. I still maintain that Obama won as comfortably as he did - because of that speech. Sure, Obama was going to win anyway, but Clinton really does have a lot of pull with people not engaged in the primary process. And that was one of the most damning - and entirely true - political speeches I've ever heard. And Obama and Liz Warren are pretty good too (understated, on purpose). Liz Warren reminds me of Bill Clinton, in that she's from small town Oklahoma (and he is from small town Arkansas), and she knows how to make liberal arguments that do not come off as detached elitism. This is why she will be the VP because HRC will believe she'll be President some day. Legacy preservation.

Anyway, this is a group of Democrats that know how to win. Unlike the hard ideologues that can always win the arguments...but never the elections. You gotta win the elections first. This is why the non-true-progressives are actually the biggest champions of progressivism. And one day in the future, I'd wager most of the Bernie Sanders fans will understand that. We've all been there in some form or another. I'm not on a high horse. Just sharing a POV.
 
U2DMfan said:
The hard ideologues vote in the primaries. That is a certainty. I thought everybody under the sun understood that much. But BM never fails to disappoint in his effort to...do whatever it is he thinks he's doing.



In each party, the 30 million people that vote in the primaries are going to be FAR more on the wings than the 30 million people people who don't. This is the same principle that will doom Donald Trump.



Trump couldn't conjure up enough additional support to win this thing. It's just not going to happen. The most votes a GOP candidate has ever gotten for President is 62 million. And that was two-wartime incumbent GW Bush who was assisted by a cynical swing state plan to stop Adam and Steve from marrying. And Bush got 40% of the Latino vote in 2004 too. And won by just a single state. And that was the only time in the last 6 elections the GOP has actually won the popular vote. So Bush in 2004 was basically the anomaly here as he barely pulled out a win even with some wind at his back.



So, I'll say it again. 62 million votes. Most ever for the GOP.



While Obama got at least 66 million votes in both of his victories.



Generously, Trump got 14 million votes in the GOP Primary. Suppose he'd need MINIMUM 67 million votes to win (clearing Obama's basement), then Donald Trump is gonna need MINIMUM 53 million people to come out of the shadows that did NOT already vote for him in the primary.



I'll say that again. 53 million (or so) additional votes above those who already voted for him in the primary. Minimum.



Who are these people? And how could there be that many of them? Want an idea of how many people that is? 53 million would be more votes than either Gore or Bush got in 2000. And Romney got just 8 million more than that in 2012. And Romney got more of the White vote in 2012 - by % - than Reagan did in his 1984 landslide. And as we all know, Romney still comfortably lost. Mitt was the most mainstream guy the GOP could have conjured up in a laboratory...and he didn't even top W's 2004 number - though it was close - 61 vs 62 million, perhaps suggesting a ceiling somewhere in that ballpark.



The demographics decided this election long before Trump opened his mouth. But since then, he went from being the only guy in the GOP race with a real chance to overcome those demographics and win for the GOP in Nov (because of his unique celebrity appeal) to a non-serious non-starter.



Trump would do well to reach 200 electoral votes (Romney got 206). And he would do well to eclipse GW Bush's 62 million votes. And even if he does, it won't be by many more. I'd think he'll be south of 64 million and lose the popular vote easily. Any path to victory for Trump will involve key victories in all the states the GOP usually hauls in - plus all the big purple states - like Florida, Ohio, PA. Whatever the case, I have not looked into the EC math. I don't see the point.



Yeah, we always hear "you never know". But these elections, retroactively, always scream "you should have known" And we would already know...if we just want to exclude the likelihood of something we've never seen happen. At some point, you gotta look at this like history tells us we should look at all modern U.S. presidential elections (and probably more true before the modern era). You should look at the macro and not the micro. The day to day happenings of these campaigns are useless. The macro view will tell us where this is going. And the macro here is beyond obvious.



And no, I don't give a shit what Rasmussen or another poll says. You can get any poll to tell you anything you already wanted to hear. Trump can't scrounge together 50-odd million people that didn't already vote for him. And Hilary Clinton can. Especially when Willie and Barry (and Liz) get out there and start selling her over the non-serious carnival barker.



I refer anyone to the 2012 DNC speech that Bill Clinton gave. I still maintain that Obama won as comfortably as he did - because of that speech. Sure, Obama was going to win anyway, but Clinton really does have a lot of pull with people not engaged in the primary process. And that was one of the most damning - and entirely true - political speeches I've ever heard. And Obama and Liz Warren are pretty good too (understated, on purpose). Liz Warren reminds me of Bill Clinton, in that she's from small town Oklahoma (and he is from small town Arkansas), and she knows how to make liberal arguments that do not come off as detached elitism. This is why she will be the VP because HRC will believe she'll be President some day. Legacy preservation.



Anyway, this is a group of Democrats that know how to win. Unlike the hard ideologues that can always win the arguments...but never the elections. You gotta win the elections first. This is why the non-true-progressives are actually the biggest champions of progressivism. And one day in the future, I'd wager most of the Bernie Sanders fans will understand that. We've all been there in some form or another. I'm not on a high horse. Just sharing a POV.
Click to expand...



Yes x1000.
 
U2DMfan said:
So, I'll say it again. 62 million votes. Most ever for the GOP.

While Obama got at least 66 million votes in both of his victories.

Generously, Trump got 14 million votes in the GOP Primary. Suppose he'd need MINIMUM 67 million votes to win (clearing Obama's basement), then Donald Trump is gonna need MINIMUM 53 million people to come out of the shadows that did NOT already vote for him in the primary.

I'll say that again. 53 million (or so) additional votes above those who already voted for him in the primary. Minimum.

.
Click to expand...

Your formula uses the assumption that Hillary will get as many votes as Obama, wouldn't be so sure about that.
 
Yeah, I'm expecting Clinton to do worse than Obama when it comes to the overall vote count. While she has the demographic shift advantage in her favor and four more years of a growing population, she's so damn unlikable that I could see the floor being a lot lower. Plus, a lot of people that would vote for her basically can't thanks to all of these voting rights restrictions put into place after the Supreme Court gutted the VRA. That will harm her by hundreds of thousands of votes, if not millions.

But regardless, the white share of the vote will drop by another 2.5 percent of the total (or however much it's been dropping every four years lately) and that will make it even harder for Trump to get anywhere. I agree that the writing's been on the wall for ages, both in terms of the makeup of the electorate and public policy polling that shows the vast majority support Democrats on virtually everything.

After Obama's 2008 election and taking a quick look at the nation's demographic trends, it became pretty obvious to me that the Democratic primary is now the actual election and the rest is basically a formality. There just aren't enough angry whites left to make the Republican party a contender on the national level when turnout is high.
 
Last edited:
womanfish said:
Just going to throw this out for opinion.

If the democratic primary had an exact opposite result - Sanders winning by 3.7 million votes, 350 pledged delegates, etc... What would Bernie do if Clinton (the loser) demanded that he adopt her ideas into his platform? What would Bernie supporters say?
Click to expand...

Most of what she supports is just a watered down form of what Sanders wants...therefore, Clinton would have no objections to raising the minimum wage, police reform, yada yada. Now, if we're talking realistically, I doubt she would really care enough if she lost to try and alter the platform since it's all about themselves when it comes to the Clintons.

Whereas Sanders wants to push the platform into areas the party hasn't gone but should, such as outright banning fracking, being evenhanded with Israel-Palestine and getting us out of the TPP. These are the issues that make up the wide gulf between Sanders and Clinton. At the end of the day, it's almost always the most liberal causes that get people marching in the street and wanting to argue strongly for change. You're not going to have millions of people marching outside the DNC rally if Clinton lost and demanding that we enter the TPP or let Israel do what it wants because those are just outright shitty positions that the left has never really agreed with even if a lot of major Democrats have chosen to go down those paths over the last few decades.
 
BigMacPhisto said:
Or it's just simple math and the thirty million that voted in the Democratic primary aren't representative of the broader one hundred and thirty million that will likely vote in November's election.

Not to mention that she beat him by about 3.7 million voters and we can expect, again, 130 million in the actual election. I don't know why this theory about primary success having anything to do with the general keeps getting idiotically floated around here. You wouldn't say Trump is the strongest GOP candidate just because he won the primaries. And why not? Polls. But there's definitely a double standard when Sanders enters the race because the party faithful had checked off "And then I elect a woman in 2016" on their bucket list back when Clinton was hired as Secretary of State.
Click to expand...
You're delusional.
 
We are three weeks away from the DNC and Philadelphia's regional rail system just lost a third of its trains to mechanical problems over the weekend. It's gonna get ugly.
 
No charges against Clinton. I have a feeling this topic won't go away. Let's see how many congressional hearings we'll get up to with this one. I think it was 8 for Benghazi
 
Clinton was utterly reckless and massively arrogant in doing what she did, but she's still the best candidate for president. Sigh.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
What I wonder is if she truly realized what she was doing. I mean, why did the Secretaries before her do it too. Makes me wonder. The only time I've ever sent a work email to my personal account was in cases when a remote connection was unreliable.

Not trying to make excuses or anything. Just strikes me as odd that someone would openly choose to that without good reason.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
mikal said:
What I wonder is if she truly realized what she was doing. I mean, why did the Secretaries before her do it too. Makes me wonder. The only time I've ever sent a work email to my personal account was in cases when a remote connection was unreliable.

Not trying to make excuses or anything. Just strikes me as odd that someone would openly choose to that without good reason.
Click to expand...

The use of private email accounts by government executives for official business was a fairly common practice. One reason is that it prevents the release of the emails under Freedom of Information Act requests.
 
She wanted to have control over the process and have privacy that the transparency of a government e-mail address wouldn't allow...that much is obvious. Would she have been so intent on doing it if she weren't planning to run for President? Perhaps not.

I guess I can still hope her health issues act up before the convention.

"How DARE you, BigMac!"

Yawn. If you support drone strikes, you support the active killing of human beings. Wishing someone would just get sick for the benefit of the American people is hardly on the same level as actively murdering other people, regardless of their crimes. Clinton and her followers are the sick ones. :up:

There's stll time. There's still time. :lol:
 
Blah blah blah I try too hard, blah blah blah I don't understand the issues blah blah I love the strawman


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
It's important to not continually conflate "private email account" with "private email server."

The two concepts are quite different, imply entirely different motivations, and should result in wildly different responses.

Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
True. And she had the latter which means she wanted full control over everything. The other Secretaries of State that she constantly brings up in defense didn't have a fucking server sitting in their basement. Having one of those in your house doesn't seem "convenient".
 
Private email servers are quite common, do you really expect her to use a gmail account when emailing from home or in travel?

This whole thing is a scam. Cybersecurity is a real threat and honestly we are extremely behind when it comes to this threat. BUT email, no matter what server is an extremely vulnerable form of communication, unless you eliminate all government employees from emailing out of the office, from their phones or only TO certain people then the issue isn't security; it's fucking politics.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
BVS said:
Private email servers are quite common, do you really expect her to use a gmail account when emailing from home or in travel?

This whole thing is a scam. Cybersecurity is a real threat and honestly we are extremely behind when it comes to this threat. BUT email, no matter what server is an extremely vulnerable form of communication, unless you eliminate all government employees from emailing out of the office, from their phones or only TO certain people then the issue isn't security; it's fucking politics.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
Click to expand...


A private email server, a gmail account, and an email account on a government server are not all equivalent in terms of security. The distinctions matter, and it's utterly exhausting listening to the mental gymnastics Clinton supporters will go through in order to avoid whatever cognitive dissonance would result from admitting that they support a candidate who, as far as we can rationally assume, behaved astronomically stupidly, at best. The obscurantism on this issue is embarrassing. This isn't really aimed at you, BVS, but at people diminishing this issue in general

No, gmail accounts, government servers, and private servers are not equal in terms of security. Neither are the distinctions minor. If an understanding of the wide range of network security measures that are used won't prove this point, James Coney's specific reference to the fact that her server was less secure than gmail should.

No, private email servers are not particularly common among private citizens. An an email account like me@mywebsite.com is not necessarily the same thing as a private email server.

If we simply operate under the assumption that it *is* a mainly political concern at the heart of this issue, this does absolutely nothing to minimize the importance of the difference between her using a private email account and a private email server.

The main argument which keeps popping up is how some might use a personal email account for convenience, or on accident, or for a plethora of reasons you or I might use such an account in relation to our work lives.

This is an entirely unconnected point. The only reason to use a private email *server* is secrecy. If she would've used a gmail account, or a government account, we wouldn't have innumerable irrecoverable emails. I don't understand how this point gets brushed away.

You either have to give some plausible reason Hillary Clinton would go through the trouble of creating private email servers -- servers she then physically took with her to foreign countries -- which has nothing to do with hiding actions she took as the Secretary of State from the people who entrusted her with such a position, or you have to argue that it isn't important that she hid actions she took as the Secretary of State from the people who entrusted her with that position.

I don't really see a third option.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Headache in a Suitcase
3 Irishmen and a Dutchman Walk Into A Sphere - General Discussion Thread Part III
51 52 53
Replies
2K
Views
63K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
862
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
9 10 11
Replies
314
Views
10K
Hewson
Hewson
Headache in a Suitcase
  • Sticky
U2 in Vegas - Tips for booking hotels, flights and other Vegasy type things.
20 21 22
Replies
642
Views
32K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
womanfish
**Political Junkies** 2020 US Election Predictions
Replies
1
Views
608
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom