2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part XI

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Tim Kaine claps like a seal

[Moonlit_Angel]

Given all the discussion thus far about who's most likely to vote for whom in regards to party lines, I figured this was an appropriate article to share, as it delves deeper into some of the analysis over potential crossover voters this year.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-t...000000898.html

On the night that Hillary Clinton accepted the Democratic nomination for president, her party featured two Republican speakers who talked about their intent to vote for Clinton this fall against Republican nominee Donald Trump.

A former White House aide to Ronald Reagan, Doug Elmets, and a health policy worker at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Jennifer Pierotti Lim, both told the convention hall of Democrats and a primetime national TV audience why they’re voting for Clinton.

Elmets said it was “a shock” to be speaking at the Democratic convention, but argued that Trump falls so far short of what’s required to be president that he felt duty bound to oppose him and support Clinton. He contrasted Trump with Reagan.

“Reagan saw nuance. Trump sees the world as us vs. them, where somebody with brown skin or a foreign-sounding name is likely to blame for our troubles,” Elmets said. “Reagan knew that a leader needs diplomacy to steer a safe, prosperous course forward. Trump is a petulant, dangerously unbalanced reality star who will coddle tyrants and alienate allies.”

“While Hillary holds many policy positions that differ from my own, her qualifications are indisputable,” he said.

Trump, meanwhile, has been trying to pick off Democratic voters of his own, appealing to Sanders supporters repeatedly in speeches.

This election, in fact, has a high potential for crossover voting both by traditionally Republican and by traditionally Democratic voters.

One study conducted by Deep Root Analytics found that about 9 percent of the voting population in the United States were Republicans leaning toward Clinton, a total of 16.2 million people. And they also found that 14 million people, about 8 percent of American voters, were Democrats who lean toward Trump.

The average “Reluctant Republican,” as Deep Root labeled them, is often a woman, or is of upper income or highly educated, and social conservatives also make up part of this group. The average “Disaffected Democrat” is a white male, on the lower end of the income and education scale.

Deep Root found 266,220 Republicans who might lean toward Clinton, and 205,032 Democrats who might cross over to vote for Trump, just in the Raleigh-Durham and Charlotte areas.

So far, however, Clinton has an edge among high-profile party defectors. Several well-known Republican names have endorsed her , some driven by national security concerns, others by economic issues, and all to some degree by concerns about Trump’s temperament. Trump has not received any real equivalent type of support from well-known Democrats.

Democratic pollster Geoff Garin said part of the goal for Clinton is to have her “run more strongly among Democrats than Trump does among Republicans.”

“Even in the CNN poll on Monday that had Trump ahead, 25 percent of Republicans said they would not be proud to have Trump as president, compared to 16 percent of Democrats for Clinton,” Garin told Yahoo News. “And several polls have documented that a larger share of Republicans say that Trump lacks the qualifications and temperament. If events increase the focus on these considerations, or [if] people focus more on them when it dawns on them that Trump actually could be president, there will be the potential for people to peel off of Trump — either directly to Clinton or perhaps for [Gary] Johnson,” referring to the Libertarian governor of New Mexico, who is also running for president.

The bit touching on the types of Republicans who might vote for Clinton and the types of Democrats who might vote for Trump amused me a little with its specificity (sci-fi fans ?), but I think there's some potentially telling and interesting details in this article.

[gump]

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase

Tim Kaine claps like a seal

I'm not sure which one I love more: Tom Kaine clapping or Tim Kaine waving a flag.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

He also waves like Mr Bean

[Irvine511]

"A man you can bait with a tweet is not a man you can entrust with our nuclear codes.”

The end.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Yep.

[bono_212]

This election cycle has killed Facebook for me. I can't log in at all anymore without seeing Republicans yelling at Democrats, or even worse, Bernie supporters acting like children. It's a wasteland.

Sent from my SM-G935T using U2 Interference mobile app

[Diemen]

I might (extra stress on might) have convinced my mom tonight to take a harder look at who Donald Trump really is, so I haven't totally abandoned all hope. She's firmly in the never-Clinton camp, but hasn't quite made up her mind on Trump. And luckily some of the Bernie or Busters have softened up in the last week.

[cobl04]

I definitely hate the Bernie sooks the most. It's so pathetic. And so infuriating that - despite her blindingly obvious shortcomings - Trump is somehow seen as less damaging than Clinton.

I mean, part of me strongly hopes Trump wins, just because of how funny the next four years would be or until he's assassinated, but christ get the fuck over yourselves.

[bono_212]

Where did this narrative of Hillary being a devil of some kind come from? I'm so confused whenever I see a post saying that this election is picking the lesser of two evils. I guess I'm really just not with what's going on at all right now. This is a common feeling I see on my Facebook at least 5-10 times a day it feels like: its like the choice between lex luthor vs Joker as president

[bono_212]

Oh look, someone just posted another one:

 

I don't even understand...

__________________

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by cobl04

I mean, part of me strongly hopes Trump wins, just because of how funny the next four years would be

There's a pretty good chance minorities, immigrants and Muslims wouldn't find it funny.

[Diemen]

Originally Posted by bono_212

Oh look, someone just posted another one:

 

I don't even understand...

That's what I think this DNC has done so well: reframe the narrative that Hillary is just another politician out for herself. It has patiently and methodically brought out example after example showing that, actually, Hillary really does care about the issues. She really does put in the hard work of coming up with solutions. She really does listen to people's problems and follow up with them.

Essentially the DNC has attempted to argue that Clinton is actually Leslie Knope. I think they did a pretty good job of it, too.

[Popmartijn]

Originally Posted by bono_212

Where did this narrative of Hillary being a devil of some kind come from?

This article puts the start at around January 1996.
https://thepolicy.us/thinking-about-...87c#.if9gymfga

In January of 1996, while Whitewater investigations were underway but unfinished, conservative writer William Safire wrote a scathing and now-famous essay about Hillary Clinton entitled, “Blizzard of Lies”. In the piece he called her a “congenital liar”, and accused her of forcing her friends and subordinates into a “web of deceit”. He insisted (without any apparent evidence) that she took bribes, evaded taxes, forced her own attorneys to perjure themselves, “bamboozled” bank regulators, and was actively involved in criminal enterprises that defrauded the government of millions of dollars. He ended the piece by stating that, “She had good reasons to lie; she is in the longtime habit of lying; and she has never been called to account for lying herself or in suborning lying in her aides and friends.”

And from that moment on the Republicans ran with that story. And because of all the repetition and people's often short memories (Clinton was one of the most favourably rated US politicians when she was Secretary Of State) that part is sticking with most.

[BigMacPhisto]

Clinton's poor decision making with what she supported in the past along with her transparent attempts to claim power at all costs are why people on the left dislike her and even her supporters in this thread will agree on both of those counts. I agree that most of the Republican hit points on her are utter nonsense and fairy tales. But for people on the left? She's done a hell of a lot of damage over the years.

I think part of the problem is that like Jeb Bush this year, she's basically a dinosaur - a relic from an older age that nobody wants in an era where authenticity, political purity and (most importantly) excitement matter most. Clinton's from that pre-Obama period where it was all about appearing Presidential and being politically cautious. Now, the rules of the game have changed. Candidates that vote for Bush doctrine nonsense including the Iraq War, take money from Goldman Sachs for oral fellating them, etc. are things that just don't work in the party anymore, but thanks to her name recognition and popularity with segments of the Democratic Party that's what helped her win the nomination.

There will never be another Clinton or Jeb Bush or John McCain winning the major party nominations ever again. This is the end of the line. Republicans clearly want excitement and Democrats are going to demand liberal purity.

[Moonlit_Angel]

While I fully support the Democrats continuing to push for liberal policy becoming law, I also think the party has to be careful about moving towards the whole "purity test" idea. That's what the GOP's been doing in recent years, and it's been backfiring on them in many ways, and leading to a party that isn't even remotely unified. We definitely need to have a clear cut, strong message and central theme for our party policy-wise, certainly, and Democrats absolutely need to be stronger in fighting back when the Republicans try and shoot down any legislation they attempt to pass. For all their faults, the Republicans do know how to run roughshod over people in order to get what they want. The Democrats seem to struggle more with bringing out that tough side sometimes.

But we also shouldn't be so restrictive with who we allow to work with us to the point where we isolate ourselves and become an echo chamber. If someone who may be more moderate/centrist, or even conservative on some issues, wants to help out and support the Democratic Party, that indicates to me they're on board with at least a FEW of our ideas right off the bat, and I'd say that's a good sign right there.

I do take the point about being tired of establishment politics and political/family dynasties, though. I totally understand the desire for new blood, and new faces. Unfortunately, for whatever reason, despite the fact that the youngest age a person's allowed to be president is 35, which is pretty young and which should entice many younger politicians to throw their hat in the ring as a result, it doesn't seem there's enough of them out there doing so (or at least, they're not getting the kind of support at local or state levels that they need to make that boost). Hence, for the most part, older people still wind up running.

Plus, for all the talk about wanting younger people in office, experience still matters to a lot of voters, and fair or not, they may not see younger people as having enough of it to prove themselves worthy of running. Obama obviously had more political experience when he ran in 2008 than Trump does, but even he had people doubting his abilities back then (and even after he got elected). Maybe as time goes on we'll see more of that attitude shifting and see people becoming more accepting of younger candidates and new faces, and fortunately, now that we've had people like Obama, Hilary, and Rubio changing the party dynamics on both sides to where we now have more candidates that aren't old white men running, I do think we'll see a lot more variety of presidential candidates/nominees in coming years. And I'm all for that.

But as of now, despite the complaints about dynasties and age and so on, at least voters have some idea of what to expect with people who've been around a while, and I think some find that comforting, especially in uncertain times.

I also don't argue that politics is way too wrapped up in corporate sponsors and Wall Street, and I do agree that that is something Clinton will need to address and deal with to prove to potential voters she's on their side. That is something that absolutely needs to be fixed (and I think dismantling the Citizens United ruling could be a good start at making that happen).

Originally Posted by bono_212

Where did this narrative of Hillary being a devil of some kind come from? I'm so confused whenever I see a post saying that this election is picking the lesser of two evils. I guess I'm really just not with what's going on at all right now. This is a common feeling I see on my Facebook at least 5-10 times a day it feels like: its like the choice between lex luthor vs Joker as president

I'd wondered that, too. No, she's not perfect, and yes, she's supported things I wouldn't (notably the Iraq War), but I don't exactly see her as the devil incarnate, either.

But Popmartijn's article explains a whole lot of where that mess began. I was 12 in 1996, so I wasn't aware of that sort of thing back then. It's kind of incredibly sad that the GOP spent so many years trying to take her down, and based on a lot of ridiculous nonsense reasons at that.

Regarding the issues of authenticity, and being likable and exciting, I understand people wanting a candidate to be those things, and obviously I know they have to have those qualities to some degree when they do the "travel and schmooze" thing and fire up voters at rallies.

But those qualities can be in the eye of the beholder, too. Sure, people may find Trump exciting, in the sense that he's shaking things up big time for the GOP and politics as a whole. I, however, think he's expressing that excitement in a horrible way. And sure, Clinton may not be the most personable figure in many people's eyes, they may find her robotic and hard to relate to, but there's plenty of people who've worked with her who respect her hard work and extensive knowledge of political issues. So which quality is more important to some people in that instance?

Speaking for myself, the most important thing for me as a voter is whether or not the candidate is going to do their best to fight for and support at least most, if not all, of the issues that matter to me. If they are, they get my vote.

As for memes and people sharing their opinions and whatnot, yeah, I've read some utterly ridiculous, facepalm-worthy stuff online as well :/. I saw someone who had supported Bernie in the primaries say on another site earlier tonight that this election would be like choosing between Stalin and Hitler. Which...yeah...no.

(Not to mention, are we as a society seriously not done yet with the "Hitler" comparisons in politics? Holy hell, people, get a new song to play already).

Originally Posted by Diemen

I might (extra stress on might) have convinced my mom tonight to take a harder look at who Donald Trump really is, so I haven't totally abandoned all hope. She's firmly in the never-Clinton camp, but hasn't quite made up her mind on Trump.

My mom, sister, and I are all on the same page with our choice . We're very outnumbered by my relatives, however. They either hate both Trump and Clinton, or they're solidly Trump.

[bono_212]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

along with her transparent attempts to claim power at all costs

Comments like this. What does this even mean?

Originally Posted by Moonlit_Angel

As for memes and people sharing their opinions and whatnot, yeah, I've read some utterly ridiculous, facepalm-worthy stuff online as well :/. I saw someone who had supported Bernie in the primaries say on another site earlier tonight that this election would be like choosing between Stalin and Hitler. Which...yeah...no.

This was the one I saw the other day where I was like...what?

[BVS]

Originally Posted by bono_212

Where did this narrative of Hillary being a devil of some kind come from? I'm so confused whenever I see a post saying that this election is picking the lesser of two evils. I guess I'm really just not with what's going on at all right now. This is a common feeling I see on my Facebook at least 5-10 times a day it feels like: its like the choice between lex luthor vs Joker as president

In the 90's Republicans embraced this excessive cartoonish propaganda campaign. It gave birth to Limbaugh, then later Fox News, and the current right wing media landscape. Which has lead to this current celebration of ignorance; which has lead to Trump.

This propaganda machine centered around the Clintons; they attacked Bill, Hillary, and even Chelsea. They spent so much time and effort attacking them that real news sources had to start speaking to their claims. But this cartoon media has been focused on the word Clinton for so long that it's just permeated our entire media landscape.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[gump]

Originally Posted by bono_212

Comments like this. What does this even mean?

Yeah. Like her embracing of Obama's candidacy after her defeat in the 2008 primaries in a way that was clearly more active/enthusiastic than Sanders so far.

[PhilsFan]

Originally Posted by bono_212

Where did this narrative of Hillary being a devil of some kind come from?

While I'm uncomfortable with Obama's heavy use of drone strikes (which we've discussed separately and is obviously a complicated issue), I'm very turned off by Hillary's tendency to embrace aggressive foreign policy. She's certainly more right-wing on that front than Obama. There is a reason a lot of prominent neoconservatives are behind her, and it's because they consider her one of them in the arena of foreign policy.

BMP's attacks on HRC are largely nonsense, however. He seems to stray away from the actual negatives of Clinton regularly (aside from her economic policies, but he only really scratches the surface on the actual issues involved there), opting instead to get really fucking upset that it took her slightly longer to get on board with gay marriage than it took Barack Obama.