2016 US Presidential Election Thread Part XI

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.
It's too late for me to run for President, but you're welcome to write in my username at the polling station if you want. :wink:
 
womanfish said:
Can you lay out Trump's specific plans to "end the violence"? To get rid of ISIS, since its "so easy" as he states? I know he's a big fan of the Kurds, BIG fan, good people. LOL

Actually, I'll take anyone giving me one Trump coherent Trump plan on ANY subject.
Click to expand...


My point is out of 61 speeches given yesterday I don't think ISIS was mentioned once. My whole point was to analyze the fact that they are not gearing their message to the public concern of swing voters. If I were a professional political scientist this would raise red flags for me in projecting the bump or effectiveness of the convention. Take what you will from my post. This election is not all about Trump but a referendum on the Obama-Clinton doctrine. As for a couple specifics here you go.

- Trump wants to build a safe zone protected and funded by the UN in northwest Syria to house refugees. Purpose of which to process refugees in an orderly fashion and protect civilians from ISIS. This would stem the stream of refugees into Europe. I believe one of the Paris attackers and the axe wielding guy on the train embedded themselves in the refugee population. A more stringent vetting process in the safe zone would prevent more attacks and possibly inspired attacks in Europe and the US

- He has said he does not want to telegraph how he would defeat ISIS in Syria quickly. You don't lay out your battle plan to the enemy. He has said he would increase air strikes to target command and control, transportation, and oil revenue production. Right now we are flying less than 20 sorties a day as opposed to 100s daily against Serbia during the Kosovo War.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Oregoropa said:
My point is out of 61 speeches given yesterday I don't think ISIS was mentioned once. My whole point was to analyze the fact that they are not gearing their message to the public concern of swing voters. If I were a professional political scientist this would raise red flags for me in projecting the bump or effectiveness of the convention. Take what you will from my post. This election is not all about Trump but a referendum on the Obama-Clinton doctrine. As for a couple specifics here you go.
Click to expand...
As much as we have concerns for "safety" we also have concerns going to war. So if you were a political scientist you would be concerned about those flags as well.


Oregoropa said:
- He has said he does not want to telegraph how he would defeat ISIS in Syria quickly. You don't lay out your battle plan to the enemy. He has said he would increase air strikes to target command and control, transportation, and oil revenue production. Right now we are flying less than 20 sorties a day as opposed to 100s daily against Serbia during the Kosovo War.


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

Come on, you're smart enough to know that's skirting the question. He doesn't have a plan, you can give the American people an idea without telegraphing. Is he planning on going to war or not?
 
namkcuR said:
If Democrats are hesitant to embrace the flag, it's only because the GOP has made it into a political symbol of a kind of superficial, cultish nationalism that we don't wish to embrace.



I probably made some generalizations there, but the point stands.
Click to expand...


The gist of my post is that Democrats need to win undecided voters who may have nationalistic tendencies. From a purely political strategic standpoint they are making an error at their own perile. Taking a more nuanced approach or ducking the existence of ISIS in the first night is not going to endear them to the voters they need to get. If the GOP is cultist the Dems have staked out a position on the complete opposite end of the spectrum. I would argue they need to find a place in between to be effective. They may rectify this in upcoming nights.

I laid out some Trump specifics in my reply to Womanfish. From a messaging standpoint Rudy, Flynn, Newt, Pence hit the security-terror message hard. Maybe too cultist or fear mongering for your tastes. But the message may not be directed to you. Instead they are going for the outstanding votes right now.

If politics is a game with the winner declared on election night. Then the GOP has a better game plan right now to win those votes in swing states and put them in a position to win.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
Seeing the polls (since those are always right!!!), 90% of Bernie supporters back in April making the switch to Clinton is a good enough percentage for me.

That 10% was never going to vote for Clinton, maybe for Trump, but most likely those votes are going to Gary or Jill

Those are numbers that can be managed I think depending on location. If it's CA, then I'm not sure Clinton cares, as it'll go Blue. If it were FL, then I think we've seen in the past what a hundred thousand people can do to this country.
 
BEAL said:
Seeing the polls (since those are always right!!!), 90% of Bernie supporters back in April making the switch to Clinton is a good enough percentage for me.

That 10% was never going to vote for Clinton, maybe for Trump, but most likely those votes are going to Gary or Jill

Those are numbers that can be managed I think depending on location. If it's CA, then I'm not sure Clinton cares, as it'll go Blue. If it were FL, then I think we've seen in the past what a hundred thousand people can do to this country.
Click to expand...

I can't seem to find the link, but Nate Silver wrote about how that poll is misleading. The 90% number is contingent on voters having to choose either Clinton or Trump. When other options are presented - third party candidates, abstaining, etc - the number is much lower.
 
Oregoropa said:
My point is out of 61 speeches given yesterday I don't think ISIS was mentioned once.
Click to expand...

You do realize there are still 3 more days in the convention, right?


- Trump wants to build a safe zone protected and funded by the UN in northwest Syria to house refugees.
Click to expand...

Trump has also stated that he would be willing to withhold US aid to allies unless they paid up their debts. How willing do you think our allies would be to work with Trump if they're unsure whether he'll have their backs because he thinks money is more important than global security?

A more stringent vetting process in the safe zone would prevent more attacks and possibly inspired attacks in Europe and the US

He has said he does not want to telegraph how he would defeat ISIS in Syria quickly. You don't lay out your battle plan to the enemy.
Click to expand...

That's also an easy way of covering up for the fact that you don't have a plan worth sharing. And this whole "I would end it so fast" flies in the face of the defense and intelligence community's considerable expertise and carefully considered opinions, and also contradicts his "no more stupid wars in the Middle East" statements. And given the fact that ISIS is embedded among civilian populations, I don't think increasing the bombing would produce the clear cut results Trump would hope for. Combine increased civilian casualties with his anti-Muslim domestic policies, and you have the perfect recipe for increased radicalization of Muslim youth.

Bottom line is Trump is promising vague and simple solutions to problems that flat out do not have simple solutions.
 
I will also remind Trump supporters of this story from a while back regarding the level of his commitment to actually enacting anything resembling a foreign policy:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/magazine/how-donald-trump-picked-his-running-mate.html

One day this past May, Donald Trump’s eldest son, Donald Trump Jr., reached out to a senior adviser to Gov. John Kasich of Ohio, who left the presidential race just a few weeks before. As a candidate, Kasich declared in March that Trump was “really not prepared to be president of the United States,” and the following month he took the highly unusual step of coordinating with his rival Senator Ted Cruz in an effort to deny Trump the nomination. But according to the Kasich adviser (who spoke only under the condition that he not be named), Donald Jr. wanted to make him an offer nonetheless: Did he have any interest in being the most powerful vice president in history?

When Kasich’s adviser asked how this would be the case, Donald Jr. explained that his father’s vice president would be in charge of domestic and foreign policy.

Then what, the adviser asked, would Trump be in charge of?

“Making America great again” was the casual reply.
Click to expand...

Sooooooo...yeah.

Then there's the not so little issue of Trump constantly throwing temper tantrums whenever somebody dares to criticize or call him out on something, be it on Twitter or elsewhere. To Trump supporters here, do you seriously think someone who behaves like that should be meeting with foreign leaders? You don't think that would kind of be a massive problem for foreign relations?

On the note of national security and ISIS, by the way, I looked on the DNC's website for upcoming events and I noticed they'll have a couple people speaking later this week in relation to gun control. Something the GOP continues to refuse to support, despite a couple of the more recent mass shootings here in the States being carried out by ISIS sympathizers.

To say nothing of how, for all the Republicans' talk about sympathizing with the police in light of all these recent police shooting incidents, as well as their cries of how we need to make this country safer in non-terrorist terms, they don't seem all that keen on changing the gun laws so civilians have less chance of running around armed and shooting at other people or the police.
 
Last edited:
I think Trump for sure wins Nevada and North Carolina. That puts him at 212 Electoral Votes when you add in the obvious states.

The possibilities to swing:

Iowa - 6 EVs
Ohio - 18 EVs
Pennsylvania - 20 EVs
Florida - 29 EVs


Even if he wins those first three, that only puts him at 256. Basically, he has to win the trifecta of Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida to win this thing. I do not see a scenario where Wisconsin or Michigan flip before those three either.

I do believe that the white voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida are actually more similar than people would expect in terms of attitude and lifestyle.


I'd rank the flip-a-bility as:

1. Nevada
2. North Carolina
3. Iowa
4. Ohio
5. Florida (non-white population could have strong turnout)
6. Pennsylvania (those cities are going to be hard to overcome)

I also think a lot of potential swing states will quickly revert to their old ways in polling once the Democratic convention ends...with all of the money and focus being on those five above states and Virginia. Virginia will fall off quick if it becomes apparent that Clinton's strong appeal in the D.C. suburbs isn't going to go anywhere.




For those that didn't take a closer look as to why Trump is doing so well, it turns out that he's now leading white working class voters by a 39 point margin compared to 20 points from before the convention. Basically, the white and under-educated group are going to him by such a wide margin that it's really tipping the skills.

Funny enough, Clinton had a slight gain with college-educated voters after they got a taste of the Republican convention.
 
Last edited:
It saddens me that just a month ago we were talking about Arizona going blue and now we have to worry about Pennsylvania going red. For Donald Trump.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
I'm not looking at any forecast until the debates. It just doesn't mean anything right now, other than it was probably silly to assume it was never going to be fairly close in the polls.

It's not like it was going to be 99% - 1% polling. Trump is the nominee for the GOP, I think if it was Bush/Rubio/Cruz, the numbers would be similar.
 
I think when we will really see the true race get underway, you are going to see Bernie in NH, MI, WI, Biden in PA, Kaine in OH, MI, PA, FL, etc.. and Obama and Michelle in NC, FL, possibley PA, and maybe GA if that remains close. Pair that with debates that will finally pin down Trump on policy specifics, and I believe the shift will be to Clinton in a pretty significant way.
I of course could be wrong. World events can shape how we go as well...
 
They asked the two Republican panelists last night how they would compare the Dems speakers for the night to the RNC speakers. They just laughed, and said, there is no comparison.

The Dem convention just beat the RNC convention for viewership. Trumps Primary game-plan, which he seems to be sticking to, is going to handicap him. To have a raft-load of trusted, well-known surrogates coming out for Clinton, it will make a difference in those centrist undecideds.
 
To me the wildcard in this is if there's really been a fundamental shift away from FACTS.

The GOP have been pushing this narrative for years. Where an education pushes you away from some form of "Real America" and towards an Elitist. You don't operate from the gut anymore, you have to use fancy words or studies to back your claim up.

This is what scares me when it comes to the debates. Trump will be pushed on specifics, on actual plans, and he won't budge. He'll stick to slogans (and he's far from the only one) and insults.

It'll be interesting to see how the media spins it. For all this talk of "liberal media bias", this same liberal media has given Trump so much exposure, as well as a free pass on the shit he's spewed. The ratings matter more than questioning his remarks or qualifications.

So I can see it going any direction really. My hope is that his tantrums on stage are enough to scare anyone on the fence towards Clinton. My fear is that we'll see his bullying as some sort of "tell it like is" crusade and succeeds.
 
BEAL said:
To me the wildcard in this is if there's really been a fundamental shift away from FACTS.

The GOP have been pushing this narrative for years. Where an education pushes you away from some form of "Real America" and towards an Elitist. You don't operate from the gut anymore, you have to use fancy words or studies to back your claim up.

This is what scares me when it comes to the debates. Trump will be pushed on specifics, on actual plans, and he won't budge. He'll stick to slogans (and he's far from the only one) and insults.

It'll be interesting to see how the media spins it. For all this talk of "liberal media bias", this same liberal media has given Trump so much exposure, as well as a free pass on the shit he's spewed. The ratings matter more than questioning his remarks or qualifications.

So I can see it going any direction really. My hope is that his tantrums on stage are enough to scare anyone on the fence towards Clinton. My fear is that we'll see his bullying as some sort of "tell it like is" crusade and succeeds.
Click to expand...

yeah, that scares me too. But, this is going to be different from Repub debates where every question is - how much do you hate ISIS? How much do you love God? :huh:
I think Clinton is ready to take on any question, left or right leaning and Trump hasn't had to deal with that type of format yet.

I am holding out hope.
 
womanfish said:
They asked the two Republican panelists last night how they would compare the Dems speakers for the night to the RNC speakers. They just laughed, and said, there is no comparison.
Click to expand...

Well, they're right about that, just not in the way they think they are.

BEAL said:
To me the wildcard in this is if there's really been a fundamental shift away from FACTS.

The GOP have been pushing this narrative for years. Where an education pushes you away from some form of "Real America" and towards an Elitist. You don't operate from the gut anymore, you have to use fancy words or studies to back your claim up.

This is what scares me when it comes to the debates. Trump will be pushed on specifics, on actual plans, and he won't budge. He'll stick to slogans (and he's far from the only one) and insults.

It'll be interesting to see how the media spins it. For all this talk of "liberal media bias", this same liberal media has given Trump so much exposure, as well as a free pass on the shit he's spewed. The ratings matter more than questioning his remarks or qualifications.

So I can see it going any direction really. My hope is that his tantrums on stage are enough to scare anyone on the fence towards Clinton. My fear is that we'll see his bullying as some sort of "tell it like is" crusade and succeeds.
Click to expand...

Precisely. This is what concerns me the most, too. If Clinton loses, it won't be because she's not the ideal Democratic candidate, it'll be because people bought into ignorance and fear as a platform.

As for the media, unfortunately, even if and when they DO call Trump out on his lies and BS, people STILL see that as "liberal bias". Because apparently sharing facts equates to liberal bias now in some people's eyes.
 
I have no doubt Clinton will be prepared. She's a fucking nerd, and a brilliant one at that. She knows policy, and she knows the in and outs of politics.

We have seen this song and dance before though, with Gore and Bush. Actually, anyone debating Bush.

I can still hear Al Gore's sighs of frustration debating that man. Instead of reasonable discussion winning in the end, it was "Fuzzy Math" and ignorance that won. Gore himself is a bit of a robot, but oh how the world would be different now had he won.

Hillary isn't the easiest person to listen to, so she will really need to do a better job of projecting her voice against the screaming of Trump.
 
Night one was an absolute homerun for the democrats, especially compared to the Republican Convention, which was an absolute joke.

While they certainly don't have to say ISIS every 5 minutes like some suggest (or like he GOP did), I do believe a lot of this election will hinge on how Hillary and the other speakers speak about national security and the ISIS / Al Qaeda threat, and how they balance the BLM movement vs support for law enforcement.

If they're strong on fighting terror, acknowledge the fear that exists instead of downplaying it... while also acknowledging the racial inequality that still exists in this country and need for criminal justice reform without throwing the rank and file under the bus... I think the middle breaks hard for Hillary and never looks back.

If they fuck up those issues, Trump has a chance to steal a squeaker.
 
I realize that the convention is not over yet, that the debates haven't happened, that the popular surrogates haven't yet hit the road for Hillary, that Bruce hasn't started singing on the campaign trail so polls are what they are but...

IT SHOULD NOT BE THIS CLOSE. Anyone who's just casually explaining away the polls like they don't matter at all is really worrying me. The polls are not everything and they can be wildly inaccurate but they also don't mean nothing either.

It's like we're living in a twilight zone.
 
My point above was this

The polls are going to be close no matter who's on the ticket. It's a two party system, with a 3rd that comes in every 4 years to make $$$ and fuck with things.

This election has proved we can nominate anyone, and they'll still poll at these current levels.
 
BEAL said:
My point above was this

The polls are going to be close no matter who's on the ticket. It's a two party system, with a 3rd that comes in every 4 years to make $$$ and fuck with things.

This election has proved we can nominate anyone, and they'll still poll at these current levels.
Click to expand...

That's true to an extent (for example I can see the polls separating and a gap growing as it gets closer to the election) but it also suggests that it's another turnout election. Which is less than a comforting thought if I'm being honest.
 
BEAL said:
It'll be interesting to see how the media spins it. For all this talk of "liberal media bias", this same liberal media has given Trump so much exposure, as well as a free pass on the shit he's spewed. The ratings matter more than questioning his remarks or qualifications.
Click to expand...

I think that is a bit of an over-generalization. There is stuff like this out there

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...d823cc-4f4f-11e6-aa14-e0c1087f7583_story.html ("Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy")

and more certainly to follow.
 
Didn't he ban them from covering his campaign?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
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
64K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
Gilead States Of America
Replies
16
Views
876
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
N
NBA 2023-24 Thread
10 11 12
Replies
333
Views
10K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - Results, Aftermath and Playlist Exchange Thread
4 5 6
Replies
165
Views
5K
Jerry Dunk
Jerry Dunk
womanfish
**Political Junkies** 2020 US Election Predictions
Replies
1
Views
611
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom