2016 Election Thread

[Squirrel]

Any Democrats who remember Jon Grunseth should be worried about the next four weeks. I am.

I'm always nervous around elections because it ain't over 'til it's over. But I don't think replacing Trump is as simple as mounting a write-in campaign. Im not even sure about each state's laws in that regard. Here's an article I read about this: http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/heres-what-happens-if-donald-trump-drops-out-of-presidential-race/

[Brock Beauchamp]

Unless Clinton drops dead in the next four weeks, she will win this thing. I can't remember seeing a campaign fall apart as Trump's has in the past four weeks. This thing is over unless something truly crazy happens.

 

And Trump cannot be replaced. That's a pipe dream. He is the GOP candidate.

[USAFChief]

The Republican Party earned this disaster, and should get the punishment it deserves. I want Trump to stay on the ballot, lose in a landslide, and drag down the other R's on the ticket everywhere.

 

I want the people who supported (and still do) Trump to be exposed for what they are. I want "Evangelicals" like Ralph Reed to continue to embarrass themselves and for most Americans to realize charlatans such as he are a root cause of some of our nation's problems. I want those politicians who still support Trump to have to go on record again and again, defending him over the next month, explaining away the things he does and says, showing themselves to be either little different or incapable of putting the nation before party.

 

Perhaps a good cleansing will give us a R Party worthy of serious consideration. We could use one.

 

In the meantime, I'll hold my nose and vote Hillary.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Well said, Chief.

 

Eight years ago I said one of the best things that could happen to the country is for the Republican Party to implode and be forced to rebuild anew under more temperate leadership.

 

Well, it appears we're nearly halfway there.

[TheLeviathan]

I really, really hope we do see the Republican party rebuild into something reasonable.

 

I worry the nutjobs have too firm a grip on the party to let that happen.  Even in miserable defeat the core crazies that made this possible aren't going to roll over easily.  Especially since we've seen how *@^* heads like Hannity have already been building the post-defeat case.

 

I mean, how sad is it that I actually tip my hat to Glenn Beck at this point?  I think we're in for things with the Republicans to stay worse before they better.  The infighting is going to take some time to settle.

[Craig Arko]

I don't think I'll miss the Republcans much in the remainder of my lifetime. I actually expect the Democrats to be considered more conservative and a new progressive party to rise from the Sanders campaign amongst our younger citizenry.

[ashbury]

I want Trump to stay on the ballot, lose in a landslide, and drag down the other R's on the ticket everywhere....

Perhaps a good cleansing will give us a R Party worthy of serious consideration.

Eight years ago I said one of the best things that could happen to the country is for the Republican Party to implode and be forced to rebuild anew under more temperate leadership.

Unfortunately, the lesson I fear that many will take from a coming debacle will be to blame the candidate and not the message he bore. "Nominate an upright person with the same platform and we would have won 2016 hands-down."

 

The faction that brought Trump's rise will not go away quietly; they were already voting Republican, ever since Nixon's southern strategy really, and they will assert their own ownership of the party if the temperate ones try too hard. The result of such an attempt will be two half-parties (doesn't matter which one keeps the name Republican), with the more temperate one being the smaller. That won't be stable for more than another election cycle.

 

/ edit - I was still busy typing and wordsmithing when Levi posted his view. Maybe I should just delete my own post and click Like.

[TheLeviathan]

Nope, you added insightful elements to my view that I didn't elaborate on.

 

I think a decade of defeats are probably necessary to marginalize the part if the Republican base responsible for this.

[stringer bell]

Word for word Chief. I agree with every syllable.

[Badsmerf]

I'm not sure if they are prepared to restructure. It's going to take a lot to move some of these people. I've heard opinions that a vote for trump will be a vote for pence, and trump will be impeached. That's a problem. Pence, while not being a complete disgrace if a person, is a huge right wing zealot. No possible he beats Clinton or any of the up and coming democrats head to head. In 4 years the gop will lose again if they continue to put out candidates like him in national elections.

 

Writing is on the wall. Even if Clinton losses Ohio, which i don't think will happen, the nation is moving more progressive as a whole. Wirth states like Georgia and North Carolina turning into battleground states.... the gop is in trouble. We've been saying it for over a year.

[stringer bell]

While I agree with you, Smerf, it doesn't seem to be the last gasp for the Republican Party. They hold too many seats in too many legislative bodies to be considered endangered. Amongst older white people like me, the conservative set of values that most of the Republican presidential candidates espoused is alive and well. That demographic will continue to diminish, but there is a lot of money and power to sustain Republicans in public office.

[TheLeviathan]

Pronouncing the death of the Republican party now is easy.  It won't seem like that in two years when they probably trounce the Dems like they have the last few non-Presidential elections.

 

The Republican Party won't die until that trend ends.

[ashbury]

Amongst older white people like me, the conservative set of values that most of the Republican presidential candidates espoused is alive and well. That demographic will continue to diminish

Then you are old enough to remember that the same situation, with the same rosy forecast for future times, was in force when we were still teens ourselves.

 

The Freakonomics site unearthed a variation on the well-known saying mis-attributed to Churchill, namely by John Adams decades before: "A boy of 15 who is not a democrat is good for nothing, and he is no better who is a democrat at 20.” Life expectancies and terminologies and civic participation were different then, one surmises. The principle behind the quote remains evergreen.

 

Maybe I should take consolation in the fact this is just a baby boom cohort, going through their collective sclerotic phase of political life and swelling the ranks of the conservatives; it seems worse than it is and, as you say, it will pass. But it will take another 20 years, which will be tough to live through, with the constant risk of a big enough vote for candidates who promise to "bomb the sh*t out of them". Ths time, the Black Swan event we appear to have witnessed on Friday happened on the Republican side; next time, it may not.

[Craig Arko]

I wonder if the dirty words 'science,' 'technology,' or 'climate change' will be voiced by anyone involved tonight.

[PseudoSABR]

Good for Anderson Cooper exasperatedly asking "Have you ever done those things?"  Which Trump, only when pressed, denied.

[Brock Beauchamp]

Trump seemed coherent for awhile but my god, he jumped on his sword during the Syria segment.

[Pardon My Dinger]

Well, I don't know what a border is and I've never been in a locker room before, so all I want to know is: who's gonna get rid of these scary clowns?

[nicksaviking]

Post debate gab is discussing Trump throwing Pence under the bus, but why isn't any one pointing out that Trump's dis of Pence included implicit acknowledgement that he backs the Russians in the Syria situation?!?

 

How is that not a huge problem?

[jimmer]

 

Clinton is going to absolutely destroy him.

 

 

total destruction.  might end up being the largest victory in many, many elections.

Like I said two months ago, it's going to be a total destruction.

[Badsmerf]

I don't see how anyone can say trump "won" that debate? He did enough not to get put away, but that doesn't mean he did well.

[PseudoSABR]

 

I don't see how anyone can say trump "won" that debate? He did enough not to get put away, but that doesn't mean he did well.

The last thing Clinton wanted was to put Trump away; so there was strategic softness on the part of Clinton, I think.

[TheLeviathan]

I thought they both did well relative to their expectations.  It was also a total *#%^ show as usual.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I thought they both did well relative to their expectations.  It was also a total *#%^ show as usual.

This was a ****show on a new level, IMO.

 

The Good:

- The moderators put the screws to the candidates, especially Trump. Raddatz repeating the question about Syria was pure gold.

 

The Bad:

- Trump throwing Pence under the bus in front of a national audience.

 

The Ugly:

- Trump threatening to put Clinton in jail. I don't understand how this isn't a bigger headline in early articles. That's embarrassing.

 

- Clinton's rebuttal to the jail comment was weak as ****. Trump opened the door for her to make him look really bad with a "Well, Donald, I promise not to try to put you in jail because I don't seek revenge on those with whom I disagree" comment.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

With the big caveat that I did not see the opening statements or the first 20-30 minutes, I thought Trump dominated it. Being in a small room like that was probably more of Trump's environment, where he could loom over people individually. But Clinton blew it. Laughing constantly at odd moments. I thought that was an SNL generated joke, but nope. She should have been subtly reminding people that Trump is a financially bankrupt sexual predator. But again, I didn't see the beginning.

[nicksaviking]

- Clinton's rebuttal to the jail comment was weak as ****. Trump opened the door for her to make him look really bad with a "Well, Donald, I promise not to try to put you in jail because I don't seek revenge on those with whom I disagree" comment.

My rebuttal: "You're going to imprison your political opponent? I guess you really have been taking advice from the Russians.

 

Clinton's retorts aren't gold that's for sure. She's no Obama, but we already knew that going in and it's a large reason why Obama won eight years ago. But she's running for president, not auditioning to be a James Bond script writer.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

With the big caveat that I did not see the opening statements or the first 20-30 minutes, I thought Trump dominated it. Being in a small room like that was probably more of Trump's environment, where he could loom over people individually. But Clinton blew it. Laughing constantly at odd moments. I thought that was an SNL generated joke, but nope. She should have been subtly reminding people that Trump is a financially bankrupt sexual predator. But again, I didn't see the beginning.

Trump had his moments but he made three huge mistakes:

 

1. The opening statement about his "locker room" comments were hollow and got him off to just about as bad a start as possible.

 

2. He threw his running mate under the bus in front of a national audience. Remember that many evangelicals are only supporting Trump because of his choice of running mate.

 

3. The entire Syria segment was laughable. His answer was off topic, largely incoherent, and Raddatz put a big ol' spotlight on it by flatly repeating the question. The entire audience laughed because it was such a spot-on moment.

 

4. Clinton is a pro, Trump is not. She moved around the stage, engaging audience members, always keeping Donald in the camera frame. It showed professional, serious woman in the foreground and a restless, anxious man in the background, especially when he kept brushing the mic against his pant leg and disrupting Clinton's statements.

 

The debate isn't as much about what happens on stage as it is what the media and the candidates do with it afterward. I didn't see Trump walk into any new traps but he gave Clinton plenty of fodder for the next week of airtime.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

My rebuttal: "You're going to imprison your political opponent? I guess you really have been taking advice from the Russians.

Clinton's retorts aren't gold that's for sure. She's no Obama, but we already knew that going in and it's a large reason why Obama won eight years ago. But she's running for president, not auditioning to be a James Bond script writer.

Yeah, I was thinking a response linking him to Putin would have been the kind of public embarrassment that Trump deserves, a "you're no Jack Kennedy" moment.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Trump had his moments but he made three huge mistakes:

 

1. The opening statement about his "locker room" comments were hollow and got him off to just about as bad a start as possible.

 

2. He threw his running mate under the bus in front of a national audience. Remember that many evangelicals are only supporting Trump because of his choice of running mate.

 

3. The entire Syria segment was laughable. His answer was off topic, largely incoherent, and Raddatz put a big ol' spotlight on it by flatly repeating the question. The entire audience laughed because it was such a spot-on moment.

 

The debate isn't as much about what happens on stage as it is what the media and the candidates do with it afterward. I didn't see Trump walk into any new traps but he gave Clinton plenty of fodder for the next week of airtime.

I believe you. That's part of why I started watching, because Trump was so ridiculous. But mostly what I saw after I started watching was Clinton swinging and missing at softball pitch moments. Just one example:

 

Trump: "Hillary is calling my voters deplorable."

 

What I expected Clinton to say: "Sexual assault is deplorable."

 

What I remember her saying: "policy policy policy"

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I believe you. That's part of why I started watching, because Trump was so ridiculous. But mostly what I saw after I started watching was Clinton swinging and missing at softball pitch moments. Just one example:

Trump: "Hilary is calling voters and American people deplorable."

What I expected Clinton to say: "Sexual assault is deplorable."

What I remember her saying: "policy policy policy"

Oh, I think that part was entirely intentional. Clinton is trying to show she's a serious candidate with real policy ideas because, let's be honest, she doesn't have to try very hard right now. Trump blasts Clinton and paces around, Hillary responds by talking about policy.

 

Is that boring? Hell yes. Is it going to help sway undecided voters to her camp simply because she doesn't appear to be a lunatic? Hell yes.

 

The fact is that Clinton would probably lose this thing if the GOP had bothered to offer up a real, reasonable candidate. There's a good chance 2012 Mitt Romney beats her in a general. Clinton is weak in so many spots: her open borders comments, the two-faced comments aspect of the recent Wikileaks, her email server, etc. There are a dozen soft spots for a competent candidate to drill down on her. Trump is not a competent candidate.

 

All Clinton really needs to do is stay on topic and occasionally rile up Trump with a barb. He'll take care of the rest for her. On every topic Trump "won" last night, he only won with his base. He's not pulling in new people while reluctant voters/allies are bailing off his ship on a daily basis. His strategy is a losing one because, frankly, I don't think he's very bright. He's doubling- and tripling-down on voters he won eight months ago while alienating almost everyone else in the process.

[Vanimal46]

Flonase is missing out on a big opportunity to be the official sponsor of Trump's sniffles during the debate...

 

Trump when speaking about foreign policy sounds like me trying to wing a book report about "To Kill A Mockingbird" in high school... 

 

Trump appears to keep on appealing to his diehard fan base, but he's not attracting any one new to the group.