2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part XI

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by mikal

I'm afraid anything he does seems to help him at this point. He's currently ahead in the polls and for the first time, ahead in the fivethirtyeight projection.

We're fucked.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Update this morning - NBC has her jump up 7 points today. First post convention national poll. Yesterday PA poll - up 9.

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Originally Posted by Vlad n U 2

You can understand where Trump is coming from without necessarily supporting him.

No. Not in this case.

The Romney Obama debates went against two NFL games as well. The debates did well in the ratings.

The NFL has night games on Sunday, Monday and Thursday. Friday and Saturday nights are the lowest ratings days of the week.

That leaves Tuesday and Wednesday... two of those days in October are major Jewish holidays.

Oh, and yes... October. Baseball playoffs on every single night.

And the debates were scheduled last year, by an independent bipartisan committee.

Trump is merely trying to take a non issue and turn it into his advantage to somehow prove that the system is "rigged" against him.. He has zero case, but i suppose most of what he says has zero case.

There is no "seeing where he's coming from" on this issue, because there is no issue. He's merely making one up because that's what he does best... make shit up.

[anitram]

It's a bit weird to me that he's going down this NFL route (and lying about being contacted by them) since it's silly and so easily debunked. He'd have been better off claiming the system is rigged because it doesn't allow the other candidates to get on the stage - they'd back him and for him it's a lot better to have 3 people attacking Hillary than him having to debate policy with her one-on-one. Think about the primary debates, how many times did other candidates debate with each other while he basically stood there bloviating and threw in an insult once in a while. He said nothing of substance and in that format, he really didn't even need to.

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by cobl04

This is the thing though, the line about Mexicans didn't look good. His repsonse to the father of the Muslim army bloke didn't look good. His comments about his daughter, or the Obamas, or any one of a million things, didn't look good. But it hasn't mattered. It hasn't hurt him.

So why would talking over Hillary all of a sudden be the thing that hurts him? I don't buy it.

I disagree. There is still a large squishy middle of voters that continue to go back and forth.
The mexican judge thing did hurt him for a good month. Hillary was nearing a double digit lead.
The FBI thing, coupled with the RNC convention put Trump back into a tie/up half a point.
Now after Dem convention, she just went up 7 points in the first post convention poll, and the Muslim father thing is ongoing. Which means it could stretch that bounce out considerably.

[womanfish]

Originally Posted by anitram

It's a bit weird to me that he's going down this NFL route (and lying about being contacted by them) since it's silly and so easily debunked. He'd have been better off claiming the system is rigged because it doesn't allow the other candidates to get on the stage - they'd back him and for him it's a lot better to have 3 people attacking Hillary than him having to debate policy with her one-on-one. Think about the primary debates, how many times did other candidates debate with each other while he basically stood there bloviating and threw in an insult once in a while. He said nothing of substance and in that format, he really didn't even need to.

I know Trump is terrified to debate. He was able to give 30 second responses all the thru the primary, and most questions were major softballs because they were about Republican ideas. How bad is ISIS, and can we defeat them? How much do you love God? How evil is planned Parenthood, etc...

Now, he will have to form long responses to bipartisan questions where people really are really looking for some sort of coherent plans and principled response. Trump will do great with his current base if he continues to play like he has for the last year, but the swayable voters will lean to Clinton if he stays on this route.

[Oregoropa]

Originally Posted by Mack_Again

Harambe was a gorilla shot in that zoo in Ohio that I forgot the name of.

Sure it's not Mittrambe ?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[dazzledbylight]

Ah.... Libertarians...

Here's what one of my favorite Progressives Thom Hartman (who created the 'Brunch with Bernie [Sanders] radio interview sessions) has to say about them:

"Libertarians are just Republicans who want to smoke dope and get laid".

Makes sense to me.

[LuckyNumber7]

Originally Posted by womanfish

Again. Sexist as shit. She gets paid what is normal for someone of her background and stature. First lady of Arkansas, First lady of U.S., 2 term senator of one of the most influential states in the union, SOS, and past presidential nominee. No comes close to that background yet, let see other peoples fees.



Donald Trump - $1.5M



Topping the list by a longshot is billionaire birther and infamous reality-TV host Donald Trump. “The Donald earned a staggering $1.5 million per speech at The Learning Annex’s ‘real estate wealth expos’ in 2006 and 2007,” according to Forbes. “Trump appeared at 17 seminars and collected this fee for each one.”



Bill Clinton - $200K



Tim Geithner - $200K



Ben Bernanke - $200K to $400K



Condoleezza Rice - 150K



Larry Summers - $135K



Al Gore - $100K



Sarah Palin - $100K



David Plouffe - $100K



Dick Cheney - $75K



Mitt Romney - $68K





But yeah, she shouldn't be paid this amount. ridiculous

Are you fucking kidding me? Like, you're really trying to be a walking, talking stereotype here. What the fuck did I say that was sexist? That someone cares about all sources of their income? You can't just wildly scream "sexist!" if someone has a criticism of Hillary Clinton. I didn't say anything even remotely sexist. There isn't even an accidental way to misunderstand what I said. You're just saying it because fuck it! When you don't hear what you want, you just scream sexist!

Holy crap you're such a troll. I said nothing about how she "shouldn't be paid that much." Go read.

[Diemen]

Calm down.

[BigMacPhisto]

Clinton does a bang up job in this interview...until she then blatantly lies about Comey's words on the e-mails and the Clinton Foundation receiving money from foreign entities for speeches that Bill gave, both of which are obvious facts that nobody would argue against. Ugh.

Seriously. Why the fuck would you try and say Comey said something other than what he actually said? Why not just be smart and say that "I disagree on what was considered classified" or something?

And then the Clinton Foundation shit. Ugh. You can't just say something isn't true when it's clearly a fact as reported by your own organization. Just say Bill fucking gave speeches, got paid for them and that they will have no influence on her public policy as President.

It's really not that difficult.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eaa9X2BF4I8

[gump]

I'm really enjoying looking at the 538 election forecast model today, guys.

[BigMacPhisto]

It's basically in the bag at this point. The debates will only cement the victory.

[mikal]

Originally Posted by gump

I'm really enjoying looking at the 538 election forecast model today, guys.

Yeah, really happy with her bump. Maybe, just maybe Trump's latest blunder (along with the natural convention bump) is hurting him.

[gump]

Originally Posted by mikal

Yeah, really happy with her bump. Maybe, just maybe Trump's latest blunder (along with the natural convention bump) is hurting him.

Her likelihood is up like 7% in the "polls plus" model, which basically disregards the conventions. So it's generally good news.

[iron yuppie]

Originally Posted by mikal

Maybe, just maybe Trump's latest blunder (along with the natural convention bump) is hurting him.

I assume you are referring to his remarks about Khizr Khan's DNC speech. That might be the thing that finally sticks to him, as active combat troops are among the few groups who are sacrosanct across party lines. He is catching a lot of heat from prominent Republicans about that issue as well, most notably from McCain.

[gump]

Originally Posted by iron yuppie

I assume you are referring to his remarks about Khizr Khan's DNC speech. That might be the thing that finally sticks to him, as active combat troops are among the few groups who are sacrosanct across party lines. He is catching a lot of heat from prominent Republicans about that issue as well, most notably from McCain.

It speaks volumes that we can't accurately know what "Trump's latest blunder" is supposed to be.

The Russia/Ukraine answers were so incredibly bad, I'm speechless.

I honestly think that if Trump was a woman, he would be getting the Sarah Palin treatment by now. In addition to the bigotry and narcisism, they guy is utterly ignorant.

[namkcuR]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

It's basically in the bag at this point. The debates will only cement the victory.

But I thought you were sure Hillary was going to lose to Trump?

[trojanchick99]

Now the right wing media is slandering the Khan family. It's disgusting. All Trump had to do was talk about how he respects their sacrifice and can understand their anger. But he can't even do that. How is he supposed to be a fucking diplomat if he can't even do that.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by trojanchick99

Now the right wing media is slandering the Khan family. It's disgusting. All Trump had to do was talk about how he respects their sacrifice and can understand their anger. But he can't even do that. How is he supposed to be a fucking diplomat if he can't even do that.

So much for "supporting the troops", eh? Ugh.

[martha]

I've been trying to imagine him watching a cultural demonstration in a foreign country, like presidents do when they visit. Will he make fun of it, like he does everything he doesn't understand?


Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference