2016 Election Thread

[Brock Beauchamp]

I didn't want to start a new thread for this but it's worth a conversation. The NBA has moved the 2017 All-Star Game out of Charlotte in protest of NC's transgender bathroom law.

 

To say this is a bold move is an understatement. In the modern era, has a sports league moved their ASG for any reason, much less a law recently passed in a state?

 

Crazy. Good for the NBA.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/sports/basketball/nba-all-star-game-moves-charlotte-transgender-bathroom-law.html

[Squirrel]

Wow, that is kind of amazing.

[stringer bell]

 

Wow, that is kind of amazing.

To cite the Spectrum commercial, Paul Giamatti couldn't have said that better.

[Brock Beauchamp]

It's an interesting trend that puts conservatives in an increasingly untenable position going forward. The free market is all fun and games when business interests align with the Republican Party on taxes and lax regulation... But businesses are turning on the party because social legislation is bad for business. Exclusion is bad for business.

Republicans have been put in the position of cheering on Citizens United and jeering when things don't go their way, yelling "businesses should stay out of politics!"

As an interesting side note, a few weeks ago I did a check on the richest Americans. Out of the top ten, EIGHT are pretty staunchly liberal.

 

The Republican Party's contradictory mission statement has reached the breaking point. It will be interesting to see how they adapt. They're pro-business until they're not. They're all about "freedom" until they're not. While Trump has (slightly) bridged some of these gaps on the LBGT community and abortion, he has created more problems as well (immigration, religious freedom, etc).

 

The party is broken. Completely and utterly broken.

[Mike Sixel]

Trump is going to win, imo. People want empty promises, not complex answers.....

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Trump is going to win, imo. People want empty promises, not complex answers.....

Trump can't win unless he brings people of color on board. He simply can't win enough of the white vote to carry 270 electoral votes. As it stands today, a full 33% of the American population is skewing 80+% in favor of Hillary without her lifting a finger. 

 

Now, with that said... Is there a way he bridges the gap with the Hispanic community, which will make or break him?

 

I don't see how that happens. He has said too much, taken too polarizing a stance, to win that community. How can he possibly back off the wall and judge comments? Hillary doesn't even have to do anything, all she needs to do is run footage of his primary speeches.

 

Trump cannot win New York. He cannot win California. Hell, he can't win the west coast, period. Unless something drastically changes (namely, Hillary doing something incredibly stupid, which is unlikely given her polish and craftiness), I simply do not see a path to a Trump presidency.

[Brock Beauchamp]

The last Republican president to win a general election without the Hispanic vote was... George Senior, maybe?

 

That was 1988. While I can't find solid statistics, the Hispanic population was around 6-8% at that time.

 

Today, it's around 18%.

 

People like to compare Bush and Trump but Bush narrowly squeaked out Florida and a few other states (I'm not going to derail with arguing whether he won at all) because he carried a large vote advantage with Hispanics.

 

McCain lost the Hispanic vote. Romney was skewered by the Hispanic vote.

 

And Romney's numbers with Hispanics are going to look great compared to Trump.

 

I'm just as scared as anyone that the angry Cheeto might win... But when looking over the numbers, I don't know how it will happen unless there's an enormous bloc of white voters who will participate in 2016 but didn't participate in any election from 1992-2012.

 

And given the changes in America since the 80s, is that even possible? I don't see how it is.

[Badsmerf]

Vilsack is not really a good choice for Clinton. He is more of a moderate like her, and doesn't really do much for a large segment of the target population. She needs someone that is charismatic and can help balance the negativity.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Even with the email scandal coming to a head and a convention bump, FiveThirtyEight still gives Clinton a 60% chance of winning.

 

Once Hillary gets her bump next week, where will that number sit? 65%? 70%?

 

Something has to drastically change for Trump to win. Sure, maybe that happens. Maybe someone tries to assassinate Trump and fails, thereby winning over sympathy votes. Maybe Clinton shows up to a debate wearing a clown costume... But those are wild variables that could go either direction and can't be predicted.

 

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

[DaveW]

Kaine would be a good choice IMO, he has been rumored for sometime to be a VP type (Obama in 2008) and is generally well respected.

He also speaks Spanish and is a catholic (this will help bring out some of the religious vote and Hispanic vote IMO) and has a good background when it comes to security (he is tough on ISIS etc) which is going to be another main theme to this campaign.

 

Is he the most "sexy" young future of the party type pick? No.
But it's all about winning IMO, and bringing him on will help appeal to a lot of the "middle", hispanics, people concerned about ISIS as well as a decent amount of "moderate republicans" who are looking for ANY reason not to vote for Trump.

 

He also is only 58 years old, so technically he could run for POTUS in 8 years.

Vilsack on the other hand would be a poor choice IMO.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Looking back, Romney was a heck of a candidate; he was smart, reasonable, a track record of competence and moderation, and the turn to the general election exposed his elitism, his out-of-touchness.  We all remember the 47% percent, but there was more than that--the elevator in the house, the dog on the roof of the car for a family trip, those gray streaks and the shape of his hair--that exposed his elitism.  

 

Here's something to consider: Has Trump, thorugh sheer bombasity, de-elited himself no matter how much money he has?  (Sorry, invented a few words there perhaps)  He is an elite, but are enough people fooled by his persona to look past that?

 

With Romney, he had no way to appeal to your average blue caller person.  Trump does by simply not giving a *#^$ what he says.  

 

And to Brock's point - never underestimate the stupidity of the average person, nor how many average people there are.  I think we're talking about a voting electorate for this coming election unlike any we've seen before.  How it turns out, I have no idea, but I'm confident we are in uncharted waters.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Here's something to consider: Has Trump, thorugh sheer bombasity, de-elited himself no matter how much money he has?  (Sorry, invented a few words there perhaps)  He is an elite, but are enough people fooled by his persona to look past that?

Yes, I believe that to be the case. I'm not sure how so many people have been easily fooled but it appears they have.

 

By acting like a grungy steel worker who goes home every night at 5pm, drinks a few too many beers, watches some CSI: Miami, and maybe roughs up his wife just a little bit, Trump has convinced the masses he's one of them.

 

The mind. It reels.

[Bark's Lounge]

Do you folks think that a strong part of his popularity could be tied to his decade of having his own reality show?

 

I remember in the late nineties when those kind of TV shows started to ramp up, there were some serious concerns amongst me and my cohorts that Reality TV was an effective tool to dumb people down. I have never watched "The Apprentice", but I could see where people who don't have much going on for them on many levels just become fanatics and absolutely believe what they are seeing on TV is the absolute truth. Hence, their love, and dedication to Trump. I know it is not the sole reason for this crummy phenomenon, but I can definitely see it being a factor.

 

When I think of Reality TV shows, the first things that pop in my mind are Trailer Parks, wife beater undershirts, Miller High Life... I think I should probably stop there.

[Squirrel]

Do you folks think that a strong part of his popularity could be tied to his decade of having his own reality show?

 

I remember in the late nineties when those kind of TV shows started to ramp up, there were some serious concerns amongst me and my cohorts that Reality TV was an effective tool to dumb people down. I have never watched "The Apprentice", but I could see where people who don't have much going on for them on many levels just become fanatics and absolutely believe what they are seeing on TV is the absolute truth. Hence, their love, and dedication to Trump. I know it is not the sole reason for this crummy phenomenon, but I can definitely see it being a factor.

 

When I think of Reality TV shows, the first things that pop in my mind are Trailer Parks, wife beater undershirts, Miller High Life... I think I should probably stop there.

Yes. See my comment a bit above ... the master of reality tv. An oxymoron if there ever was.

[Mike Sixel]

Every terrorist attack is a nail in Hillary's coffin.....

[Bark's Lounge]

 

Yes. See my comment a bit above ... the master of reality tv. An oxymoron if there ever was.

Sorry about that Chi. Missed it. I should be more thorough before I post.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Every terrorist attack is a nail in Hillary's coffin.....

Dunno, I think that knife cuts both ways.

 

Every terrorist attack makes Hillary looks weaker.

 

Every terrorist attack makes the GOP's deeply-knit bond to the NRA more despicable.

 

I'm not sure which side cuts deeper but there's growing animosity toward both sides, at least what I've seen from the moderates around me.

[Bark's Lounge]

 

Every terrorist attack is a nail in Hillary's coffin.....

I hope that is not the case. It appears that Islamic State has changed tactics and this kind of thing is going to be a regular occurrence for an undetermined amount of time.

 

I hope greater minds prevail.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Dunno, I think that knife cuts both ways.

 

Every terrorist attack makes Hillary looks weaker.

 

Every terrorist attack makes the GOP's deeply-knit bond to the NRA more despicable.

 

I'm not sure which side cuts deeper but there's growing animosity toward both sides, at least what I've seen from the moderates around me.

 

The last two are hard to pin on the NRA.....

 

What attacks like this speak to are the GOPs heavy-handed "we're all unsafe!" rhetoric.  When children are being killed in a McDonalds you start to wonder if they really are being hyperbolic.

 

(They are...but things are a bit scary too)

[Mike Sixel]

Right.......fear will turn out the vote more than boring policy wonk stuff.....

[Bark's Lounge]

 

Right.......fear will turn out the vote more than boring policy wonk stuff.....

Is that how you would approach it?

[PseudoSABR]

A bit unrelated to the current discussion, but I thought this twitter screed shaming white liberals that Trump can win made a lot of good points.

[PseudoSABR]

Trump will have to appear competent if people are going to be swayed that he'll keep us safe.  Trump really hasn't set out any kind of vision for addressing terrorism abroad.   An immigration policy is not a foreign policy.  

 

I just don't know how he sways people he hasn't already convinced.  The more one learns about Trump the worse it is for him.  

 

Beyond a domestic terrorist attack by a Mexican-Islamic border-jumper or video of Clinton kicking a dog; I just don't see how Trump makes up any more ground.  

 

Today, the day after the convention and just weeks after the end of the email scandal, should have always been his high water mark.   It will be interesting to see what the polls look like Monday...

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Trump will have to appear competent if people are going to be swayed that he'll keep us safe.  Trump really hasn't set out any kind of vision for addressing terrorism abroad.   An immigration policy is not a foreign policy.  

 

I just don't know how he sways people he hasn't already convinced.  The more one learns about Trump the worse it is for him.  

 

Beyond a domestic terrorist attack by a Mexican-Islamic border-jumper or video of Clinton kicking a dog; I just don't see how Trump makes up any more ground.  

 

Today, the day after the convention and just weeks after the end of the email scandal, should have always been his high water mark.   It will be interesting to see what the polls look like Monday...

This is my take as well. Trump will win over the people he has already won over. He'll have to drastically alter his approach to bring in new people and risks alienating the people he already won in the process.

 

And can he even alter his approach enough to win anyone over? It's not like the truly abhorrent stuff he said is years old... Some of it is only weeks old and most of it came in 2016.

[TheLeviathan]

Does he have to win people over?  

 

Look, there are two factors here none of us have the answers to:

 

1) How many typical non-voters are coming out to rage vote for Trump?

 

and

 

2) How much of the Democrat's base that came out for Obama return to the polls for Hillary?

 

I don't pretend to know the answer to either, but I think these questions are the ones that hold the answer.  Not whether or not Trump can sway anyone.

[PseudoSABR]

And it's Kaine.  Bleh.  

[Bark's Lounge]

 

And it's Kaine.  Bleh.  

Well, at least he plays a mean harmonica. |:

[Squirrel]

And it's Kaine.  Bleh.

 

Yeah. Now I'm depressed.

[DaveW]

It's a great pick, it's all about winning the election at this point and this was by far the best pick.

 

I know the Bernie bros wanted this to be some socialist utopia where nobody was responsible for the choices they made (like taking out student loans as an adult) and wanted someone to wipe out the system Mr Robot style, but the reality is this: we absolutely can not let someone like Trump win.

 

A lot will be said "lesser of two evils" and other nonsense. But in reality Hillary and Kaine are more or less Obama and Biden 2.0, but with a little more foriegn policy experience and a little (or a moderate amount of less charisma)

 

More or less it's time for the lazy Bernie bros to grow a brain and get with the program, nothing with be handed to you in this country, if you want something close to "fair" you will keep trump out of office.

[Squirrel]

It's a great pick, it's all about winning the election at this point and this was by far the best pick.

I know the Bernie bros wanted this to be some socialist utopia where nobody was responsible for the choices they made (like taking out student loans as an adult) and wanted someone to wipe out the system Mr Robot style, but the reality is this: we absolutely can not let someone like Trump win.

A lot will be said "lesser of two evils" and other nonsense. But in reality Hillary and Kaine are more or less Obama and Biden 2.0, but with a little more foriegn policy experience and a little (or a moderate amount of less charisma)

More or less it's time for the lazy Bernie bros to grow a brain and get with the program, nothing with be handed to you in this country, if you want something close to "fair" you will keep trump out of office.

Sorry, but this choice was just blech. She had a chance to add some excitement to the ticket and just added the same ol same ol which this primary showed that this is exactly what people DON'T want. And I'm a Hillary supporter and now I just feel utterly deflated. Just blech.