2016 Election Thread

[DaveW]

 

You have an interesting definition of 'fun,' there.

Oh it will be fun, people tend to be a little over-dramatic with elections.

 

I really don't see Trump winning, but even if my some miracle he does win, it's not like the US falls into oblivion overnight, don't get me wrong, it wouldn't be great, or even good, but the POTUS in this country doesn't have nearly as much power as leaders in the majority of other countries. I have faith in the realistic/non crazy GOP/Dems (who will at least have the senate) to at least keep Trump from dooming us completely , this country has dealt with some very tough and trying times and we have always bounced back.

 

But yeah, with that said, him winning would completely suck, go Clinton!

[DaveW]

 

He came to my mind as well.

 

Speaking of Cruz, has anyone damaged their brand as much as he has this election cycle? He was always an ass, but the non-endorsement at the Republican convention and now the endorsement of Trump once the polls looked close...

I think you are overestimating what his "core" or base will hold against him.

I mean, Curz is a complete clown to the majority of us, but his refusal/reversal will hardly effect his standing within his Tea-Party base.

[DaveW]

 

An anonymous source sent the NY Times Trump's previously unreleased tax returns from 1995 which showed substantial losses, enabling Trump to avoid paying taxes for nearly two decades:

 Smart indeed.

Wow.

[gunnarthor]

 

Oh it will be fun, people tend to be a little over-dramatic with elections.

 

I really don't see Trump winning, but even if my some miracle he does win, it's not like the US falls into oblivion overnight, don't get me wrong, it wouldn't be great, or even good, but the POTUS in this country doesn't have nearly as much power as leaders in the majority of other countries. I have faith in the realistic/non crazy GOP/Dems (who will at least have the senate) to at least keep Trump from dooming us completely , this country has dealt with some very tough and trying times and we have always bounced back.

 

But yeah, with that said, him winning would completely suck, go Clinton!

What I'm really worried about is Clinton winning, two years of more gridlock and then an ugly midterm rout by the GOP which sets them up well nationwide for complete gerrymandering in 2020 in an election that I don't think the Dems will win.

[Badsmerf]

The midterms are a concern. I'm not sure how to solve that problem. I just hope the gop gets a grip and stops putting out crazy candidates. Guys like Lindsey Graham are where they should try to go. The right thing might happen some say.

[Badsmerf]

Omg that Saturday night live debate was great. Alec Baldwin is the best trump ever.

[DaveW]

 

What I'm really worried about is Clinton winning, two years of more gridlock and then an ugly midterm rout by the GOP which sets them up well nationwide for complete gerrymandering in 2020 in an election that I don't think the Dems will win.

Well if Hillary wins and the Dems take the Senate (fivethirtyeight has them as a slight favorite) then I don't see how there would be too much gridlock. In fact, I think Hillary has been set up for a pretty good chance to get the public on her side because Obama has teed up a lot of things for her. 

[TheLeviathan]

 

Omg that Saturday night live debate was great. Alec Baldwin is the best trump ever.

 

Baldwin is such a schmuck, but I'll give him credit:  he was really good as Trump.

[Bark's Lounge]

 

I disagree. Once he started looking over ten percent and raising millions of dollars it gets serious. It's not his sole job to be prepared for interviews. Candidates have teams for that, people they pay fairly well. Where do you think all that raised money goes? Pays for man power and adds. There really is no excuse, it's on the party as a whole. Echoing what's already been said, if a third party really want to be taken seriously, they have to adjust their approach. This election will give them ground to stand on, but the next 2-4 years are really what's important.

I don't know. I like my presidential candidates to be studious on world affairs and the players involved.

 

It's a position that demands intelligence, and the knowledge of important events going on in this world, anything less is unacceptable.

 

I could have answered the Aleppo question with extreme confidence. Naming a leader of another country that I admired would have been easy as well, but to cut Johnson some slack, I am not sure I could have named a leader he admired. That being said, I am a blue collar dimwit.

 

Johnson has some big time problems. It's not good that a guy like me can answer questions he cannot answer.

[gunnarthor]

 

Well if Hillary wins and the Dems take the Senate (fivethirtyeight has them as a slight favorite) then I don't see how there would be too much gridlock. In fact, I think Hillary has been set up for a pretty good chance to get the public on her side because Obama has teed up a lot of things for her. 

GOP will control the House and this was supposed to be a year for the Dems to get control of the Senate.  They still might, but it'd be pretty close and they'll lose it in two years anyway.  And if the GOP wins the Senate, I think they'll really limit the potential USSC pick.

 

The next four years will look a lot like the last four years. 

[Badsmerf]

The judge is a big deal. I know I'm boring against Grassley for his non action, but unfortunately i think he still wins (although he is getting pretty old and might not make it his full term). It might be better for the gop to keep the Senate one more time, just so they can look terrible by refusing to hear another candidate. That might actually force purple it to vote in the mid term.

[Shane Wahl]

I cannot keep up with all things here, but over the last few pages . . .

 

I think the left is always to eager to come up with facile divisions . . . the Greens are not it . . . there are various socialist parties out there. They need to unify. And while there are vocal people out there in feminist circles, this is just not the mainstream of the radical left. The vast majority of feminists, myself included, respond well to arguments . . . and if not . . .um, that is just the very point of having arguments about stuff. There are ways to have arguments that lead to something quite wonderful. I recommend Blaise Pascal in his argument about fostering arguments for changing minds . . .

 

I am back to my original claim about 347 for Clinton here, though it may be 346 or 340 depending on Iowa. The split votes in Maine and Nebraska don't look great for Clinton at the moment. There are some shifting demographics at play . . . and the Dems can look to the South more in the future.

 

I am all for third parties, but there has been no one since Nader who is ultimately legitimate as an overall candidate. I take partial responsibility for that for leaving MN. Ken Pentel is a very, very solid human being who knows party politics and knows issues, but that never got off the ground. He, more than Stein, has a real idea about building a movement.

 

I do think that a Green-Libertarian movement is possible. Many people scoff at that. Congrats. Anyway, socially the two parties are mostly in line with one another. Economically, I would say that a much more powerful labor movement agrees to both sides, as with increased economic democracy it means that fewer people are dependent upon government, etc. etc.

[nicksaviking]

 

 

The next four years will look a lot like the last four years. 

 

A repeat of the past four years looks a lot better than the alternative.

 

I understand the innate desire to stick it to politicians who don't end up looking out for the interests of those they serve, I really do, but this has gotten crazy. Trump is the epitome of the guy the unethical politicians end up benefiting at the expense of the average Joe.

 

It would be like getting upset at the banks and demanding banking reforms and putting the Wells Fargo CEO in charge of it. Or it would be like getting upset with military involvement and putting George Patton in charge of withdrawing and reducing the military.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Well, the Chicago Tribune endorsed Johnson.  That's a fairly significant endorsement considering the paper had endorsed Obama twice, despite generally being republican-leaning.  It's also Clinton's "home state" or so.  Obviously, it won't affect anything but it's something for third party hopefuls.

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/09/chicago-tribune-endorses-gary-johnson-228951

 

Wow. 

[gunnarthor]

 

A repeat of the past four years looks a lot better than the alternative.

 

I understand the innate desire to stick it to politicians who don't end up looking out for the interests of those they serve, I really do, but this has gotten crazy. Trump is the epitome of the guy the unethical politicians end up benefiting at the expense of the average Joe.

 

It would be like getting upset at the banks and demanding banking reforms and putting the Wells Fargo CEO in charge of it. Or it would be like getting upset with military involvement and putting George Patton in charge of withdrawing and reducing the military.

Might depend on what issue you are worried about.  Clinton is going to be horrible on quite a few issues - national security, war, government transparency, wall st reform.  She might be better than Trump but she might actually be worse.  I think Trump is playing a character but Clinton really would work to enact a surveillance state, for example.  I'm not going to vote for him but I can't vote for her either.  

[nicksaviking]

 

Might depend on what issue you are worried about.  Clinton is going to be horrible on quite a few issues - national security, war, government transparency, wall st reform. 

 

Says Trump's campaign team.

 

People have and will always be unsatisfied with those areas; has there ever been a president that didn't have each of those same issues hanging over their heads? How are those "Clinton" issues and not "Every-Single-American-Government-for-the-Past-240-years" issues.

[gunnarthor]

 

Says Trump's campaign team.

 

People have and will always be unsatisfied with those areas; has there ever been a president that didn't have each of those same issues hanging over their heads? How are those "Clinton" issues and not "Every-Single-American-Government-for-the-Past-240-years" issues.

We're not singling out issues - we're singling out where she stands on those issues.  Clinton is the preferred candidate of Wall St - unlike other candidates in our past she has worked for Wall St concerns to the point that the country club republicans are quite happy with her and democratic progressives want to jump ship.  Her VP lobbied on behalf of Saliie Mae against the Obama administrations (very limited) reforms.  Clinton was the one who opinioned for law enforcement to have a back door ("Manhatten-like project") into the internet.  She supports the Patriot Act, rendition and targeted killing of US citizens.  Clinton is far more hawkish than many of her (assuming she wins) predecessors.  And her work at the Dept of State continues to show the efforts she has made to keep the workings of govt from being seen by its citizens. 

 

She's a horrible candidate.  If the GOP was sane, she'd have been trounced.  Instead she got put up against the one candidate worse than her.  That's not "spin."  There is so much to worry about in a Clinton presidency that we are ignoring.

 

You are concerned about Trump's views on refugees?  Well, Clinton's views on refugees were just as bad until the polls shifted.  She still supports an asylum deterrence detention program.  

[nicksaviking]

 

She's a horrible candidate.  If the GOP was sane, she'd have been trounced.  Instead she got put up against the one candidate worse than her.  That's not "spin."  There is so much to worry about in a Clinton presidency that we are ignoring.

 

You are concerned about Trump's views on refugees?  Well, Clinton's views on refugees were just as bad until the polls shifted.  She still supports an asylum deterrence detention program.  

 

This is getting very myopic and repetitive, if the American public is able to change their views on these subjects over the past two decades, why the hell aren't the politicians? All of your accusations are present tense when in fact you have no idea if they are past tense. I get that you don't believe her and you don't like her, but most of these are your opinions that her past stances are still current, not facts.

 

Clinton isn't a saint, and I don't agree with all of her current positions or past positions but she's not a bad candidate, and she's a monumental upgrade to the list of loathsome candidates the other party dragged out this year even aside from Trump. The GOP didn't have a decent human being running except for possibly Kasich or Graham. None of them would have made it a close race because the only reason Trump is within shouting distance is because he's not a politician which appears to be the main if not sole purpose driving his supporters.

[nicksaviking]

I get that John Oliver is liberal, but I haven't met anyone who hasn't said he isn't grounded and fair. His show is the best and his comparing of Clinton and Trump scandals was spot on:

 

[gunnarthor]

 

This is getting very myopic and repetitive, if the American public is able to change their views on these subjects over the past two decades, why the hell aren't the politicians? All of your accusations are present tense when in fact you have no idea if they are past tense. .

Her comments on refugees, her defense of the Patriot Act, her opposition to Wall St reform, her idea for law enforcement to have access to the internet are all issues that have happened in this election cycle.  I'm not taking old positions out of context - she stood up on stage and defended the Patriot Act at a Democratic debate.  She spoke out for the need for law enforcement to have access to the internet following the stupid shooting in California.  Her refugee comments were the origin of the anti-sanctuary city bills that were drawn up in the summer of 2015.  

 

Her position on very important issues are bad and/or dangerous.  And she's competent enough to make things worse.  

[twinsnorth49]

Clinton may not be the best candidate in the history of the Democratic party but the candidates the GOP trotted out for election should be an insult to America's collective intellect.

[ashbury]

the only reason Trump is within shouting distance

The only reason Trump is within shouting distance is that there are far more people in this country than I ever imagined who believe this is fundamentally a white nation.

 

A nation where people with darker skin should be accorded liberties in line with how well their group behaves here. Total ban on Muslim immigration, cleaning up crime in Chicago - these are just code phrases for this larger view. Black or brown skinned people using guns are cause for clamping down; white people shooting things up are just a necessary price for our second amendment liberties. Trump has given explicit voice to this "yuge" segment of the population, that until now has been seen expressing their paranoia more limitedly, some through the socially acceptable NRA^*, and some through thoroughly unsavory fringe organizations that now don't seem so fringe.

 

We now know there is a floor of about 35% of the voting population who will opt for ANY candidate no matter how unqualified as long as he expresses these views. I have never been more pessimistic about the country I was born in. We're headed for another 1930's Germany, via manufactured and manipulated resentment.

 

* _{Not saying you have to be racist to belong to the NRA. Saying it's an organization racists will naturally flock to. An organization of mainly white folks saying "we need our guns" doesn't require too many dots to be connected. http://truthaboutguns-zippykid.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/P1260492-730x488.jpg}

[Brock Beauchamp]

Unsurprisingly, Trump continues to wilt once the *really* bright lights are turned on him. He's blundering this campaign in almost every way possible right now.

 

Fivethirtyeight now gives Clinton a 72% chance of winning the election.

[ashbury]

Unsurprisingly, Trump continues to wilt once the *really* bright lights are turned on him. He's blundering this campaign in almost every way possible right now. Fivethirtyeight now gives Clinton a 72% chance of winning the election.

72% is depressing. Nate Silver is saying that given the current outlook, one out of four similar elections would go Trump's way - via Black Swan event, margin for error, whatever. I don't want our future to come down to two coin flips.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

72% is depressing. Nate Silver is saying that given the current outlook, one out of four similar elections would go Trump's way - via Black Swan event, margin for error, whatever. I don't want our future to come down to two coin flips.

I agree that it's depressing but it's one of the weaknesses of our two party system. The country is full of partisans who will make any popular vote more closely contested than it deserves, even if one of the candidates is abhorrent.

 

And thankfully, Clinton is trending upward. It worries me that any righting of Trump's ship will make this thing closer than it should be in a million years but at least things are going in the correct direction right now. It's the final month of this thing and major course corrections become less likely by the day.

 

The clock is ticking on Trump and he's becoming increasingly unhinged as it happens.

[nicksaviking]

The majority of white voting age males just have to stop getting conned into thinking their lives have become exponentially worse then they really are. Too many people driving their new cars from their single family home in their overwhelmingly white suburb to their 9-5 job that they've had for a decade seem to think they have worse and worse problems every year.

 

"Fear Everything" really should be the RNC's slogan.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The majority of white voting age males just have to stop getting conned into thinking their lives have become exponentially worse then they really are. Too many people driving their new cars from their single family home in their overwhelmingly white suburb to their 9-5 job that they've had for a decade seem to think they have worse and worse problems every year.

 

"Fear Everything" really should be the RNC's slogan.

This post is frightening. Stop oppressing my emotions!

[Craig Arko]

 

This post is frightening. Stop oppressing my emotions!

#wasplivesmatter

[Craig Arko]

This is the guy who prosecuted Whitewater. Guess who he endorsed.

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-10-03/clinton-s-former-prosecutor-michael-chertoff-endorses-her

[Brock Beauchamp]

The GOP has posted the results of the vice-presidential debate to their website:

 

 https://gop.com/who-won-the-vice-presidential-debate/