2016 US Presidential Election Thread XIII

[corianderstem]

Oh snap, that didn't work. How do I do the Tweet posting thing from the app? Help an angry woman out.

https://twitter.com/corianderstem/st...77901794590722

Sent from my SM-G920T using U2 Interference mobile app

[cobl04]

It worked they just don't show up on the app


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by cobl04

I think gump may somewhat be correct. There's movement - not in the supporters, but in GOP people. Utah Governor has just withdrawn support.

I forsee a huge split - fuck it, let's call it a schism - whereby Trump will continue on this path (we've only got a month to go) and the GOP will split in two - all the half-decent human beings will withdraw their support on moral, truly conservative grounds but all the Nazi Pepes, the people Hillary rightly called deplorables, will stay. Trump will get annihilated in the general election and the GOP may take years or decades to recover, if, say, a quarter of their base are deplorables who desert them to form their own movement.

Half-decent human beings in the GOP? I don't know, man.

[corianderstem]

Originally Posted by cobl04

It worked they just don't show up on the app


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

Yay, thanks.

Sent from my SM-G920T using U2 Interference mobile app

[trojanchick99]

Sean Hannity attempted to defend Trump by invoking the Bible. He apparently couldn't even do that properly.

https://twitter.com/DouthatNYT/statu...87794811346944

[Moonlit_Angel]

Oh, Hannity .

Wow.

[cobl04]

I'm only going by Twitter but I think gump is right. This is finally going to be the thing that ruins him.

Which is great, but also fucked given how much else has been allowed to pass.

Also you've gotta wonder how long these tapes have been sat on...


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

[martha]

Originally Posted by cobl04

I think gump may somewhat be correct. There's movement - not in the supporters, but in GOP people. Utah Governor has just withdrawn support.

I forsee a huge split - fuck it, let's call it a schism - whereby Trump will continue on this path (we've only got a month to go) and the GOP will split in two - all the half-decent human beings will withdraw their support on moral, truly conservative grounds but all the Nazi Pepes, the people Hillary rightly called deplorables, will stay. Trump will get annihilated in the general election and the GOP may take years or decades to recover, if, say, a quarter of their base are deplorables who desert them to form their own movement.

When Republicans pissed all over the substantial Latino population of California with a seriously unconstitutional proposition, they lost so much ground that they haven't recovered in at least 20 years. They're almost irrelevant here. It's nice.

[trojanchick99]

I still say the low point was him going after the Khan family.

[Moonlit_Angel]

Originally Posted by trojanchick99

I still say the low point was him going after the Khan family.

Agreed. I think that was a huge turning point for a lot of Republicans/conservatives who've been refusing to support him as well. Insulting the troops or their families is a huge no-no.

[BigMacPhisto]

Well, this treasure trove certainly proves that those of us on the left with reservations about Clinton were absolutely right. Thank you, Mr. Assange.


“There is such a bias against people who have led successful and/or complicated lives,” she said during a speech to Goldman Sachs, according to the leaked email. “You know, the divestment of assets, the stripping of all kinds of positions, the sale of stocks. It just becomes very onerous and unnecessary.”

In another instance, Clinton appears to acknowledge that she’s out of touch: “I’m kind of far removed” from the struggles of the middle class and “growing sense of anxiety and even anger in the country” because of the “fortunes” that she and former President Bill Clinton currently enjoy.

[DaveC]

a true progressive focuses on hillary clinton talking frankly about her weaknesses rather than donald trump casually admitting to sexual assault.

[BigMacPhisto]

Or I'm focusing on our next President Hillary Clinton because I am in no way obligated to go on about the delusional ravings of that lunatic. I don't work for the Clinton campaign, so that's not my job to attack some guy that already has lost the election and was headed for defeat, for what, every week other than two this year?

It really is odd that some people on the left are in such a frenzy about pertinent information concerning Clinton coming to light. For one, the election is already over. Two, yes the Russians are probably behind it and the timing is convenient given Trump's latest scandal,, but who the fuck cares? At the end of the day, why not get more information about our next leader and have this transparency come to light? There's no actual downside unless you're sitting in your rocking chair all nervous about her election prospects. If that's the case, you aren't in touch with reality or are just willing to go through hell-and-back to defend whatever candidate the Democrats have handpicked to be your next President. Both of those are just sad. At the end of the day, I'd always rather have this stuff come to light, even if it cost Democrats (and others on the left) elections.

But, sure, for the entertainment value, let's talk about his hilarious comment about illegals coming across the border in droves in order to vote in November. I got a laugh.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Irvine511

likewise, if Bernie were running, or Kaine, it would be about the same.

Those millions of millennials that either won't vote or will go for Stein or Johnson are in complete disagreement with you.

Since Trump is the nominee and would have pretty much all the same baggage that entails, you would then have to think that people"in the center" would be more willing to support Trump with all of his baggage in a Trump vs. Sanders fight simply because Sanders is a self declared Socialist. In other words, all of Clinton's issues in terms of a lack of transparency, likability, etc. would all be canceled out by some guy saying he's a Socialist and then, somehow, people in the middle would be willing to forgive Trump of all of this bullshit simply because Sanders calls himself a Socialist.

Not to mention that for it to "be the same" Sanders would essentially have to be doing a few million votes worse than Clinton with people in the middle since he would automatically be inheriting, say, three million liberals that Clinton isn't otherwise receiving in polling (either going Stein, not voting, etc.) and that's just a low ballpark figure. Then, to counteract that three million, you'd have to give Trump an extra six million votes to both counteract the three million that Sanders is receiving from liberals and the three million vote hole that Clinton already has.

And again, all of this would just be because Sanders is, what he calls, a "Democratic Socialist".

Or maybe, just maybe, the early polling of heads up match-ups was actually pretty predictive of what probably would have happened. Unless you really think the man that is Donald Trump and everything that entails is too great a match for somebody calling themselves a Socialist.






But yes, to answer this poster's earlier comment of course it's only close because Clinton is the nominee and there's pretty much nobody in political science that would deny otherwise. Especially because of the fact that Donald Trump's own polling has usually been lower than both Romney and McCain were in the last two cycles. He has often been below the 43% mark that McCain received during 2008's near landslide. So if the Republican candidate is doing worse than the previous two, yet it's somehow closer, there can be only one conclusion.

The next time the Democrats run somebody without the sort of baggage than Clinton brought along, it will be eight more years of demographic shifts in their direction and they'll probably lead by 10+ points throughout the entirety of the election cycle. Funny enough, the best thing for Republicans in terms of the popular vote years from now will be the fact that Democrats will regularly win with such ease that their voters will be less likely to show up to the polls, thus artificially boosting the Republican share. Of course, it's already been that way for decades, so...

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by gump

It's not at all about his supporters, to whom nothing he says will make a difference.

Donald Trump has 40% of the vote. He will not get elected if he only gets 40% of the vote. Trump will not be able to get the majority of remaining undecideds to rally towards him.

The 40% mark is what I often refer to as the floor for support for a candidate for either major party currently and about where the Republican party inevitably ends up when they have a real shitty candidate (since McCain and Romney got 43 and 45%, respectively if I remember correctly).

Basically, if Trump were running for any other political office, the constituents would immediately run away just as plenty of red state voters overwhelmingly fled their Republican Senate candidates in 2012 due to controversial comments concerning rape and abortion.

But he's running for the Presidency. And to those on the right, they aren't about to just hand over the most powerful position in the country and a third of the Congress/President trifecta (not to mention the Supreme Court) for another eight years. So, when it comes to brass tacks, these people desperately want an R, any R, to be the next President. If it were any other position, most of them would drop this nutjob so damn fast, but that's why he's essentially bulletproof and can't really drop below 40%. It's too important a job for people to just give it to Hillary Clinton.

[Y2K]

I stand by my comment weeks ago. Trump is subhuman, as is anyone who can still justify supporting him.

[BigMacPhisto]

Originally Posted by Y2K

I stand by my comment weeks ago. Trump is subhuman, as is anyone who can still justify supporting him.

Supporting him on a personal level? Sure.

Supporting him at arm's length as just some Republican that better supports their politics than Clinton? Not really a fair thing to call them.

If the situation were reversed and Republicans were actually competitive on the Presidential level, I'm sure many in here would bend over backwards to support whatever Democrat had ended up as the nominee, regardless of their personal behavior, if they were to the right of Joe Lieberman, etc. At the end of the day, most people are going to check the box next to their preferred letter, the R or the D, and leave it at that.

I mean, look at it from their perspective.

"Hey, so you're a Republican and here's your candidate. I should warn you, he says a lot of stupid crap and has shady business dealings."

"But he's a Republican and will sign Republican legislation?"

"Yeah, for the most part."

"Alright. Fine."




Now, the people that actually like him for his incorrigible actions and despicable comments, well, that's another story entirely.

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by Y2K

I stand by my comment weeks ago. Trump is subhuman, as is anyone who can still justify supporting him.

I stand by my response to your comment weeks ago.

[DaveC]

Originally Posted by BigMacPhisto

But, sure, for the entertainment value, let's talk about his hilarious comment about illegals coming across the border in droves in order to vote in November. I got a laugh.

you know for a fact that's not what anyone is upset about, smartass.

[cobl04]

It seems to me that BigMac is part of this weird subset of Bernie supporters whose words really belie this idea that they're "progressive". Wow.