2016 Election Thread

gunnarthor · September 29, 2016

Either way, changing positions is not the same as lying.

Sure it is. Telling voters what they want to hear rather than holding actual positions is lying. It's more nuanced than a straight up lie but it's the same. Unless you really think she changed her position on Wall St, TPP, sanctuary cities, SSM b/c she evolved (in her late 60s) - and some she's changed several times - then she's lying to you. She's saying what she thinks she needs to say to get elected.

Craig Arko · September 29, 2016

Sure it is. Telling voters what they want to hear rather than holding actual positions is lying. It's more nuanced than a straight up lie but it's the same. Unless you really think she changed her position on Wall St, TPP, sanctuary cities, SSM b/c she evolved (in her late 60s) - and some she's changed several times - then she's lying to you. She's saying what she thinks she needs to say to get elected.

I'm 59 and many of my opinions have changed in the last two decades. Call me a liar to my face.

gunnarthor · September 29, 2016

Fun little article on Kaepernick - http://www.dailykos.com/stories/2016/9/29/1575861/-Kaepernick-calls-out-both-Trump-and-Clinton

gunnarthor · September 29, 2016

I'm 59 and many of my opinions have changed in the last two decades. Call me a liar to my face.

Changing opinions is fair. Changing your viewpoint b/c that's what voters want to hear is a different thing. Do you see that difference?

Brock Beauchamp · September 29, 2016

Sure it is. Telling voters what they want to hear rather than holding actual positions is lying. It's more nuanced than a straight up lie but it's the same. Unless you really think she changed her position on Wall St, TPP, sanctuary cities, SSM b/c she evolved (in her late 60s) - and some she's changed several times - then she's lying to you. She's saying what she thinks she needs to say to get elected.

Sure, that's possible. I don't like how long it has taken Clinton to move on some pretty obvious subjects such as gay marriage.

On the other hand, the more we learn of Clinton, the more her history makes sense. She's meticulous. She listens. She's intensely studious. She's open to change. Some of those political moves could be pandering. Others could be getting more information and using that information to change your mind. You know, pretty much what we expect of every reasonable human being on the planet.

What you call "doing what it takes to get elected" could easily be viewed as "doing what her constituency wants her to do and listening to them, evolving her views to represent the people who voted for her". That can be a bad thing or it can be a good thing but it is neither automatically good nor bad in a vacuum.

Clinton didn't start changing in her 60s. She's been in a perpetual state of evolution as a human being. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though I understand and sympathize with your reluctance to trust her because of it. I struggle to trust the woman myself.

But, again, you're creating this sense of false equivalency. If you objectively view Clinton's statements and leave with the situation with a lack of trust, apply that thinking to the other guy. You won't leave the situation with a lack of trust, you'll be reeling from the sheer audacity of the stuff he has said and done over the past 40+ years.

If Clinton is untrustworthy, Trump is a diabolical monster. So let's stop calling them the same and actually apply some nuance to the conversation.

gunnarthor · September 29, 2016

Sure, that's possible. I don't like how long it has taken Clinton to move on some pretty obvious subjects such as gay marriage.

On the other hand, the more we learn of Clinton, the more her history makes sense. She's meticulous. She listens. She's intensely studious. She's open to change. Some of those political moves could be pandering. Others could be getting more information and using that information to change your mind. You know, pretty much what we expect of every reasonable human being on the planet.

Clinton didn't start changing in her 60s. She's been in a perpetual state of evolution as a human being. That's not necessarily a bad thing, though I understand and sympathize with your reluctance to trust her because of it. I struggle to trust the woman myself.

But, again, you're creating this sense of false equivalency. If you objectively view Clinton's statements and leave with the situation with a lack of trust, apply that thinking to the other guy. You won't leave the situation with a lack of trust, you'll be reeling from the sheer audacity of the stuff he has said and done over the past 40+ years.

If Clinton is untrustworthy, Trump is a diabolical monster. So let's stop calling them the same and actually apply some nuance to the conversation.

Well, first, let's not assume I'd vote for Trump. He's a joke. I might throw my vote away on a third party candidate if the polls aren't close. If they are close in my state, I'll swallow and probably vote for Clinton. But she's nowhere near as angelic as you are painting her. She opposed civil rights in her youth, campaigned for one of the worst racial laws in the 90s, race baited against Obama in 08 and threw immigrants under the bus in the election season. She has a real history of being just **** on these issues.

Brock Beauchamp · September 29, 2016

Well, first, let's not assume I'd vote for Trump. He's a joke. I might throw my vote away on a third party candidate if the polls aren't close. If they are close in my state, I'll swallow and probably vote for Clinton. But she's nowhere near as angelic as you are painting her. She opposed civil rights in her youth, campaigned for one of the worst racial laws in the 90s, race baited against Obama in 08 and threw immigrants under the bus in the election season. She has a real history of being just **** on these issues.

My intent was not to paint an angelic picture of Clinton, as my vote for her will be reluctantly cast.

My objection is to any implication that Trump and Clinton are equals. They are not, under any circumstances, equal. One is pretty typical politician fare with all the good and bad that comes with it. The other is an egomaniacal, flailing demagogue who has never looked beyond his own nose.

Squirrel · September 29, 2016

Changing opinions is fair. Changing your viewpoint b/c that's what voters want to hear is a different thing. Do you see that difference?

And you know that's exactly what she's done because it suits your stance on her?

I'm not saying there aren't questions in her motivation to get to a certain point on issues, most politicians go that route, and most politicians bring up issues of trust. As much as I support Clinton, I do raise an eyebrow here and there ... but I do that on most, if not all, candidates.

But to throw off Trump's blatant spewing of actual falsehoods as BS and to some how say that's the same or not even as bad to me lacks a serious sense of objectivity on your part. And to me that's what most are doing for various reasons.

Craig Arko · September 29, 2016

Changing opinions is fair. Changing your viewpoint b/c that's what voters want to hear is a different thing. Do you see that difference?

Sure I can see the difference. That does not mean I've seen it exhibited where you do.

Perception and predisposition skews reality. For both of us. This is where data is useful.

Willihammer · September 29, 2016

RCP has a Rasmussen poll for the 9/26-9/28 period up. Looks like Clinton gained 6 pts from the same poll last week, although it is right on the MOE.

USAFChief · September 29, 2016

I'm 59 and many of my opinions have changed in the last two decades. Call me a liar to my face.

Thank you.

Many, if not most, Americans have changed their stance on SSM, for example, over the past decade. Including me.

People are honestly going to hold it against her for changing her opinion to conform to the (entirely moral) arc of history?

And what's more, attempt to portray that as the equivalent of Donald Trump's blatant falsehoods?

C'mon.

TheLeviathan · September 29, 2016

We somehow find a way to hold our politicians to both impossible and empty standards at the same time.

nicksaviking · September 29, 2016

Well, first, let's not assume I'd vote for Trump. He's a joke. I might throw my vote away on a third party candidate if the polls aren't close. If they are close in my state, I'll swallow and probably vote for Clinton. But she's nowhere near as angelic as you are painting her. She opposed civil rights in her youth, campaigned for one of the worst racial laws in the 90s, race baited against Obama in 08 and threw immigrants under the bus in the election season. She has a real history of being just **** on these issues.

If Clinton opposed Civil Rights in her youth, you're talking about at a very young age, and I assume you are talking about her campaigning for her Republican father as a teenager. The fact that she soon broke from her family's ideologies as a young person seems pretty impressive to me.

Also the "racial laws of the 90s" were misguided but seemed like a good idea to just about every civic minded person back in the day. The laws were clearly intended to get the drug dealers out of the neighborhoods with the assumption that it would make drugs less accessible to the youth and make the streets safer. I have to say, I'm really getting tired of this BS. It turned out to be a poor idea, but people now act like locking up minorities for minor drug offenses was the intent of the policy all along, which obviously it wasn't, it was simply an effort to combat drugs with consequences that were not at the time so crystal clear.

gunnarthor · September 29, 2016

If Clinton opposed Civil Rights in her youth, you're talking about at a very young age, and I assume you are talking about her campaigning for her Republican father as a teenager. The fact that she soon broke from her family's ideologies as a young person seems pretty impressive to me.

Also the "racial laws of the 90s" were misguided but seemed like a good idea to just about every civic minded person back in the day. The laws were clearly intended to get the drug dealers out of the neighborhoods with the assumption that it would make drugs less accessible to the youth and make the streets safer. I have to say, I'm really getting tired of this BS. It turned out to be a poor idea, but people now act like locking up minorities for minor drug offenses was the intent of the policy all along, which obviously it wasn't, it was simply an effort to combat drugs with consequences that were not at the time so crystal clear.

No. Those were pretty racist laws at the time. People knew it. We spoke out against it. Clinton did have to turn right b/c of the Contract with America and the upcoming election and took it out on blacks by stereotyping them as welfare moms and thugs or super predators. He had room to move on that b/c the GOP had made itself so incredibly unpopular he had the room to move - much like how the Dems have ****ed over immigrants today but still get stronger support b/c of the GOP's stupidity on immigration. But that doesn't forgive Clinton for her role in it. Nor should we forgive her for the race baiting she did against Obama in 08.

TheLeviathan · September 29, 2016

That Huffington Post article is pretty damn good. I remembered some of that (and supported McCain in many ways for being, what seemed like, an honest human being. I voted for Obama but it was by far my hardest voting decision), but holy crap that is some dirty stuff.

But, to be fair to Hillary (and she may not deserve it), that's not uncommon in primary politics. Things tend to get uglier there than anywhere else.

Brock Beauchamp · September 29, 2016

If Clinton opposed Civil Rights in her youth, you're talking about at a very young age, and I assume you are talking about her campaigning for her Republican father as a teenager. The fact that she soon broke from her family's ideologies as a young person seems pretty impressive to me.

Also the "racial laws of the 90s" were misguided but seemed like a good idea to just about every civic minded person back in the day. The laws were clearly intended to get the drug dealers out of the neighborhoods with the assumption that it would make drugs less accessible to the youth and make the streets safer. I have to say, I'm really getting tired of this BS. It turned out to be a poor idea, but people now act like locking up minorities for minor drug offenses was the intent of the policy all along, which obviously it wasn't, it was simply an effort to combat drugs with consequences that were not at the time so crystal clear.

Yep. Sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Those laws were a mistake. They were also largely bipartisan and overwhelmingly supported by the public.

Now that we've made the mistake, the important part is figuring out how to fix it, not to lay blame for widely supported actions taken over two decades ago.

Brock Beauchamp · September 29, 2016

But, to be fair to Hillary (and she may not deserve it), that's not uncommon in primary politics. Things tend to get uglier there than anywhere else.

Yeah, primaries are brutal. I think it's in part because it's a large group of candidates who largely agree on the majority of topics; therefore, candidates get *really* ugly with one another to differentiate themselves from their opponents.

I mean, the Bush/McCain black baby thing of 2000 still makes my head spin. Talk about yuck.

Craig Arko · September 29, 2016

Now that we've made the mistake, the important part is figuring out how to fix it, not to lay blame for widely supported actions taken over two decades ago.

This needs to be said in the baseball threads more often.

TheLeviathan · September 29, 2016

Yeah, primaries are brutal. I think it's in part because it's a large group of candidates who largely agree on the majority of topics; therefore, candidates get *really* ugly with one another to differentiate themselves from their opponents.

I mean, the Bush/McCain black baby thing of 2000 still makes my head spin. Talk about yuck.

You're also dealing with the folks in your party most hungry for that kind of red-meat garbage.

Brock Beauchamp · September 29, 2016

You're also dealing with the folks in your party most hungry for that kind of red-meat garbage.

Very good point.

Bark's Lounge · September 30, 2016

Thank you.

Many, if not most, Americans have changed their stance on SSM, for example, over the past decade. Including me.

People are honestly going to hold it against her for changing her opinion to conform to the (entirely moral) arc of history?

And what's more, attempt to portray that as the equivalent of Donald Trump's blatant falsehoods?

C'mon.

The last twenty years has been a weird scene to see. A lot of progressive things have happened since then, that more or less, at that time, it was a big question mark.

20 years ago, I was an Anti-establishment guy playing in an experimental alt-rock band, I was pro-same sex community. At the time, I never thought about marriage, as I thought that was an old time tradition tied to religion. I never thought about the importance of that to religious same sex couples as well as to anyone else, to me it was antique.

Growing up a Lutheran, Homosexuality was always taught to be a sin or wrong, not strictly, but it was frowned upon. It is one of the things that pushed me towards non belief, along with many other things.

I am very happy with the trajectory of same sex acceptance and the right to be united in marriage. It makes me very happy.

Of course, my ideas have changed and I have been married for 9 years. I am no longer Anti-Establishment and have accepted the flaws, and the in-between of our society according to me.

I hope, for us all, this election shakes out right.

DaveW · September 30, 2016

The encouraging thing to me is that at this point, Trump really has no realistic electoral college road to the white house. He could win Florida, Ohio and North Carolina at this stage, and it still wouldn't be enough. At that point he would still need to win Pennsylvania (a state that becomes more and more blue every year) or Colorado AND Nevada. (The weed state and the gambling/prostitution state).

Baring something insanely drastic, that just isn't going to happen, and more than likely Trump doesn't sweep Florida/Ohio and North Carolina anyways.

Speaking of Colorado, I wish Clinton had the guts to run under national marijuana legalization/taxation. At this point the polls show well over 50% of Americans are for it, and it would help solve/fix a lot of issues as well:

1. Gets a ton of non violent offenders out of jail/future ones from going to jail.

2. Puts a dent (albeit not as big as if you legalized all drugs) out of the cartels/violence etc

3. Pumps a ton of new found tax money into the govt, spend 33% of it on education, spend 33% of it on rehabilitation (for all prisoners/drug users), spend 33% of it on clean energy research/mass transit/infrastructure improvements.

4. Let every state tax it how they want, just try to mandate that 33% goes into education and rehab.

I still hold out hope that after November 8th, assuming Hillary wins and the Dems win the house, that YOLO Obama starts the ball rolling on legalization across the board.

Squirrel · September 30, 2016

The Dems will not win the House. The Senate, maybe, hopefully ... but they won't retake the House.

TheLeviathan · September 30, 2016

Dave, I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, but if Trump won Ohio and Florida he'd have a great chance to win the election. You add North Carolina and it's almost a certainty he wins.

538 is currently predicting a 305 to 233 election difference. That's with NC and FL going Dem. You flip those 44 votes and he wins.

And I have no idea how you think the Dems take the house.

Shane Wahl · September 30, 2016

Conservativism has become a huge, orange, dangerous caricature of itself and people feel like they have no choice but to stick with it even in this bastardized form.

Don't think liberalism isn't tipping towards the same thing. There are those on the left trying desperately to keep their side from sliding into the abyss of "weaponized sensitivity" and oppressive attitudes about speech and the exchange of ideas.

We're in a brutal echo chamber right now.

I generally find broad claims about generations of people to be ridiculous or at least overstated. Same thing goes for this weaponized sensitivity stuff. It is overstated and exaggerated by certain people out there for whatever reason. I have witnessed literally nothing of this sort at this community college in Indiana where I have had over 1,200 students in the past eight years.

Shane Wahl · September 30, 2016

I've spent the past several months reading up on various things about why we're seeing the Trump rise and it makes sense, though people are making bad choices in the process.

Disclaimer: what follows is intentionally ignoring racial issues that affect non-whites because that's not my point.

White America is pissed off. To an extent, they have a right to be pissed off. Wages have stayed flat for decades, there's little positive outlook, and the nation is changing. People are confused and scared. We're going on 40 years of politicians promising them the bad times of the 70s are behind us, yet nothing actually changes. Politicians juke and weave once in office and continue to support policy their constituency either doesn't like or doesn't understand (I believe an understated point missed by many analysts is the increasing complexity of the world without a corresponding increase in knowledge of the average voter). Trust in the system is non-existent within many circles of formerly establishment voters.

Inevitably, from a frightened voting bloc emerges a fear candidate. In a perfect world, people would knuckle down and seek real solutions during these times but that's rarely how things play out in the real world. These situations usually lead to mob mentality because it's so much ****ing easier to blame the outsider than your own bad life choices. So we get a nation of increasing hostility to everyone who isn't the traditional white voting bloc: black lives matter, Muslims, homosexuals, immigrants, etc. This isn't the first time it's happened in this country. It's not the fifth time it's happened in this country. Trump is directly pulling from the Nixon playbook with his hammering of "law and order", which was a direct response to a frightened white populace in a post race riots America. He's pulling from the late antebellum period and the intense northern hatred of Irish and blacks.

Lots of people compare Trump to various candidates but after doing quite a bit of reading, I was surprised to find I drew the most parallels to Andrew Jackson. The ill-informed bluster, the lashing out at east coast elites, the "might makes right" attitude, the intentional dumbing down of his campaign to win the lowest common denominator, claiming everyone is against him/the election was stolen, all of those were hallmarks of Jackson's run to the presidency.

Bumping this because it is exactly correct. And quite important to deal with after the election.

Shane Wahl · September 30, 2016

Trump going Lewinsky is literally the one way to absolutely guarantee that Clinton's favorability goes up. If they do that . . .oh my god the incompetence.

Shane Wahl · September 30, 2016

Dave, I don't know where you're getting your numbers from, but if Trump won Ohio and Florida he'd have a great chance to win the election. You add North Carolina and it's almost a certainty he wins.

538 is currently predicting a 305 to 233 election difference. That's with NC and FL going Dem. You flip those 44 votes and he wins.

And I have no idea how you think the Dems take the house.

No that is not correct. NC, Ohio, and Florida are not enough. It gets to 272-266 Clinton, including Iowa and Nevada for Trump. Flipping Virginia and Colorado in 2008 was a big, big deal.

TheLeviathan · September 30, 2016

No that is not correct. NC, Ohio, and Florida are not enough. It gets to 272-266 Clinton, including Iowa and Nevada for Trump. Flipping Virginia and Colorado in 2008 was a big, big deal.

538 currently has both of those going Dems (VA and CO) and flipping those three states would win it for Trump. FL has 29 votes, NC has 15, and Ohio has 18. A swing of 52 votes would easily put Trump over 270 based on their current projections. (Looking at their now cast section, it wouldn't be 52 because Ohio is already for him, but the swing of 44 votes would put it at 274-264 Trump)

So it's possible we're looking at different things, but if those three states all swing Trumps way there is absolutely a good chance he wins.

Brock Beauchamp · September 30, 2016

Of all places, USA Today wrote a pretty solid article on why they aren't endorsing Trump.

And to drive the point home why he's not comparable to Clinton on the "lies" front, read this jewel:

"Trump has been on so many sides of so many issues that attempting to assess his policy positions is like shooting at a moving target. A list prepared by NBC details 124 shifts by Trump on 20 major issues since shortly before he entered the race. He simply spouts slogans and outcomes (he’d replace Obamacare with “something terrific”) without any credible explanations of how he’d achieve them."

124 shifts in policy. That's amazing.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/09/29/dont-vote-for-donald-trump-editorial-board-editorials-debates/91295020/