2016 Election Thread

[ashbury]

- 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.

Same general reaction here. I would have preferred more of a try at a Drop The Mic moment on her part, too. Something like "Donald, that's too many false accusations to try to rebut in two minutes. Let me just observe, that the first thing a dictator does is put his opponents in jail after a show trial. I don't think Americans want that deplorable kind of country." And then sit down, looking pleased with herself if she wants, and let him sputter that he's talking about Real Big Crimes and so forth.

 

Yes, I said deplorable. I think it would be fine if she did a jujitsu move on their talking point, using this as a specific example, putting some visible distance in her view of the loud Trump minority versus the more moderate voters considering him.

 

But the above works fine without that one word, if her team thinks she should not go there.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Just to clarify. I only think Trump won the debate under the present day system of the two parties playing by different rules and "everything is good new for Republicans" norms.

 

.. and also fortunately for Clinton and/or the country it makes little or no difference at this point. ymmv

[DaveW]

THIS election is over. Trump is done.

 

Which is good so that I can just ignore this ****show for the next month.

[Badsmerf]

Mitt Romney in 2012 destroys Clinton. McCain in 2008 most likely beats Clinton (without Palin). She isn't a great candidate, but she absolutely made trump look like a loud mouth idiot last night. She crushes him on policy. She crushes him on experience. She crushes him on presidential look and feel. The only thing trump has in this debate are prior questionable decisions she's made, which he did ok on conveying.

 

I don't think throwing pence under the bus was a good decision either. Pence has to be wondering what he got himself into. At this point all Clinton really has to do is not die and she will be elected. I don't think there are enough uneducated white males to bridge this gap.

[TheLeviathan]

Pence isn't the only Republican who is wondering what he got himself into.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Pence isn't the only Republican who is wondering what he got himself into.

Yep, it was reported today Paul Ryan is ceasing any and all campaigning/commenting on Donald Trump.

 

The most powerful Republican in the country just backed away from his own presidential candidate. He didn't pull support but made it clear he's washing his hands of this campaign and focusing on down-ballot races.

[Badsmerf]

He is all but guaranteed to run in 2020 isn't he? If he doesn't play to the right wing he would be a tough challenge for Clinton. With her unlikability, I don't see her winning again in 2020.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

He is all but guaranteed to run in 2020 isn't he? If he doesn't play to the right wing he would be a tough challenge for Clinton. With her unlikability, I don't see her winning again in 2020.

He might run but I don't think he'll have even a fraction of the momentum he had this time around.

 

In 2020, expect the GOP to get out well in front of this issue and smash Trump before he even gets going. The way this election is shaking out, they can't afford to have him do this to the party again.

[Squirrel]

 

Yep, it was reported today Paul Ryan is ceasing any and all campaigning/commenting on Donald Trump.

 

The most powerful Republican in the country just backed away from his own presidential candidate. He didn't pull support but made it clear he's washing his hands of this campaign and focusing on down-ballot races.

I think that, in and of itself, speaks volumes. And not in a good way. They lashed themselves to him and now all this 'jumping ship' just looks ... desperate, imo. They, and by 'they' I mean the Republican party leadership, let this get to this point, and now they are grasping, desperately. Yeah, I guess 'coming to their senses' is a good thing, if I could believe this is about 'coming to their senses.' How many are jumping ship not because they are truly disgusted with who Trump is, who Trump always has been, but because they see him losing and want to try and not lose with him? What they are saying publicly rings false with me. They aren't standing on any firm principals here, despite some of the public messaging, they just aren't going down with a losing ship. As I said, desperate. Cowards.

[Squirrel]

 

He is all but guaranteed to run in 2020 isn't he? If he doesn't play to the right wing he would be a tough challenge for Clinton. With her unlikability, I don't see her winning again in 2020.

It depends on what she does in the next four years. You never know ... she could be great at her job. But it depends on how many votes the House and the Senate lose and how obstructionist they can be.

 

The politics of compromise is something she is good at, so we'll see.

[Craig Arko]

Next up: doing well on an IQ test punches a ticket to prison culture.

[ashbury]

It depends on what she does in the next four years. You never know ... she could be great at her job. But it depends on how many votes the House and the Senate lose and how obstructionist they can be.

 

The politics of compromise is something she is good at, so we'll see.

I think she needs to get brave and campaign for the final month on a united government platform for the coming two years. Cook up some sort of Contract With America like in the 90s, with specifics for centrist legislation, and say that a vote for Republicans in congress this year is a vote for four more years of gridlock - "and if we don't come through, vote us out of congress again in two years. What (as The Donald might say) do you have to lose?" And she, for her part, has little to lose with this deal, as the Senate will flip back in 2018 anyway.

 

Up to now her campaign has been sooooo cautious. It's been proved right, given her opponent. But now she maybe doesn't have an opponent. So she should be uber-optimistic and upbeat in her public persona, and aim for a really good tenure in the White House, which means getting stuff actually done. Which might actually keep the losses in 2018 to a minimum

[Squirrel]

 

I think she needs to get brave and campaign for the final month on a united government platform for the coming two years. Cook up some sort of Contract With America like in the 90s, with specifics for centrist legislation, and say that a vote for Republicans in congress this year is a vote for four more years of gridlock - "and if we don't come through, vote us out of congress again in two years. What (as The Donald might say) do you have to lose?" And she, for her part, has little to lose with this deal, as the Senate will flip back in 2018 anyway.

 

Up to now her campaign has been sooooo cautious. It's been proved right, given her opponent. But now she maybe doesn't have an opponent. So she should be uber-optimistic and upbeat in her public persona, and aim for a really good tenure in the White House, which means getting stuff actually done. Which might actually keep the losses in 2018 to a minimum

I'm gonna say this and get dismissed for it, but I'm going to say it again anyway because it's what I truly believe ... I think cautious is the only way she could play it. I've seen and experienced too much in my own life ... when you come out strong and tough, you are a raging bitch, because well, women aren't supposed to be like that. Men are praised for it, women are not. But she can't come out too soft and demure, either; that wouldn't play at all. The only way she can play her campaign is cautious. There are many times I wish she had really gone on the attack, in a good way, and groan over too many missed opportunities, but I also understand why she can't. I believe that. Maybe not for this crowd here, because I think most all of you are beyond that, but for the general public, this is a thing. It really is. The standard that women have to play with is double and never right no matter what. It's changing, but it's not there yet. But once elected ... we will see. She then will have the opportunity to do what needs to be done in that regard, but she can't prior to being elected. I have read a few articles about Clinton's unpopularity, and it's interesting to note that her peaks of most unpopular have been at times when she was seeking power, i.e. running for office, but then her popularity goes up after.

[Badsmerf]

I have read that as well. I refer to the disslike for Clinton, however I do believe much of it is unfounded, discriminatory, based on lies, ignorance, ect. That doesn't change it, it only explains it. I look at her in my own way, and I find it frustrating when others are so blatantly mislead they are unable to see truth. 

 

She might gain the respect and approval of enough independent voters to win again. I never thought enough people would vote for a black man to be president either. The nation can change, but it is made more difficult with giving a certain faction of our population a big platform to fabricate the truth. Listening to Corey Lewindowski in the wrap-up made me furious. Van Jones did all he could not to knock him off his stool. It is people like him... that make it so hard for progress to be made in our country. 

[Craig Arko]

I quite enjoy Bono.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LHontObeHI

[Brock Beauchamp]

FiveThirtyEight now has Clinton at 83.6%. Will it hit 90% at some point before the election?

[nicksaviking]

It depends on what she does in the next four years. You never know ... she could be great at her job. But it depends on how many votes the House and the Senate lose and how obstructionist they can be.

 

The politics of compromise is something she is good at, so we'll see.

Agreed, she doesn't have to be like able in 2020, the economy does.

[PseudoSABR]

 

FiveThirtyEight now has Clinton at 83.6%. Will it hit 90% at some point before the election?

Well if more polls like this NBC one show a 11 to 14 point lead for Clinton, it very well might.

[Pardon My Dinger]

So the next debate's going to be in Las Vegas, huh? It's gonna be a sniffly one!

[Squirrel]

 

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.

I was just having this discussion with a friend of mine at work. He, too, was disappointed initially she didn't come back at him with something great and he said he wondered about it all night. Why didn't she ... another missed opportunity to just put him away. But then he thought about and thinks she did right by not saying anything back because then she's dignified his statement with a response, even if it was a killer response. No matter how stupid that comment was, he thinks it was meant to bait her as much as just being Trump, and she didn't even give him one iota of a return, not a moment of her attention. Not sure if that was good or not ... but it's another way to look at it.

[Craig Arko]

"When they go low, we go high."

 

This Michelle Obama quote was brought up early.

[ashbury]

FiveThirtyEight now has Clinton at 83.6%. Will it hit 90% at some point before the election?

Assuming she goes on to a 6 point win or better, it better hit close to 100% at some point before the election or else there is something wrong with Nate's algorithms. A wek in advance, there is hardly scope for a new Black Swan event, and it will be down to sampling error, which his aggregation methods are meant to reduce to a percent or so.

[ashbury]

I'm gonna say this and get dismissed for it, but I'm going to say it again anyway because it's what I truly believe ... I think cautious is the only way she could play it. ...

I don't disagree with your analysis, as it applies up to now; and I'm not going to claim that it already was incorporated in my comments when I wrote them.

 

What I was saying ties in, though, in that perhaps the ground rules have dramatically changed in a way that lets her be a bit more free. It could be a once-in-a-term opportunity to really change the game, if she turns her sights not just to key races (which she certainly is now doing) but something more.

[TheLeviathan]

 

I don't disagree with your analysis, as it applies up to now; and I'm not going to claim that it already was incorporated in my comments when I wrote them.

 

What I was saying ties in, though, in that perhaps the ground rules have dramatically changed in a way that lets her be a bit more free. It could be a once-in-a-term opportunity to really change the game, if she turns her sights not just to key races (which she certainly is now doing) but something more.

 

I think you're right, but of Hillary's many strengths, charisma and inspirational or transformational leadership is not among them.  

 

I think she continues to do best to just let herself coast to victory and let Trump do all the damage down stream on the ballot by himself.  In fact, her biggest mistakes in the debate, IMO, were when she too readily engaged Trump and took the bait.  

[Badsmerf]

Just throwing it out there, how would a kasich rubio ticket be doing right now? Emphasis on Kasich, the vp isn't as important. I think this would be a much different race, and that Kasich would do very well in debates with Clinton.

[PseudoSABR]

I enjoyed this piece on athlete's responses to Trump's "locker room" talk.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

 

I think you're right, but of Hillary's many strengths, charisma and inspirational or transformational leadership is not among them.  

 

I think she continues to do best to just let herself coast to victory and let Trump do all the damage down stream on the ballot by himself.  In fact, her biggest mistakes in the debate, IMO, were when she too readily engaged Trump and took the bait.  

Democrats need to confront Republican office holders about the fact that the leader of their party is Trump, and everything he represents. Ignoring Trump and pretending he doesn't exist is exactly what the Paul Ryan types want.

 

Maybe it all falls apart organically, maybe not. The better Democrats need to step up and try to manage this, if possible. It's too big to ignore. Hillary needs to be involved somehow. How, I do not know. Above my pay grade. 

[PseudoSABR]

 

Just throwing it out there, how would a kasich rubio ticket be doing right now? Emphasis on Kasich, the vp isn't as important. I think this would be a much different race, and that Kasich would do very well in debates with Clinton.

I think there's two factors that people often neglect when they suggest that another Republican would be doing better: 1) that these republicans would lack the ground swell support that Trump gains both from the base and those who normally don't vote, 2) the career-politician, corrupt-insider claim against Clinton falls flatter with career politicians making the claim.  

 

Kasich is more like Pence than the primaries showed.  He's darn likable but he's swallowed by his religion.  For instance he proposed an agency to promote "Judeo-Christian values." I imagine there's a bunch of stuff that would be unpalatable to moderate, secular Americans.  

 

All that said, I do think Kasich would be polling ahead though the electoral math would still be unfavorable.   In the end I think Kasich wouldn't make the arguments against Clinton to rally the base, and gets the losing side of the Bush v. Gore election.

[stringer bell]

I'm voting for Clinton understanding her weaknesses and that chances of her accomplishing much are limited. Obama had nice majorities upon his election, but failed to get much done. It is doubtful that Hill will have much more than a slim majority in the Senate and a minority in the House. Clinton may actually be better than Obama as far as working across party lines, but witnessing what Republicans achieved by stonewalling Obama, I doubt they will be willing to make many compromises.

 

Further, I think Clinton is quite likely to be a one-term president, either for health reasons or because having a Democrat in the White House will be out of fashion after three consecutive terms and five of the last seven. If Clinton fails in the eyes of the public, I really fear for our country unless the GOP realizes that in this (2016) election, their problem is both the message and the messenger. I can see a Ted Cruz or his type winning in 2020 as the general population tires of the status quo.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Just throwing it out there, how would a kasich rubio ticket be doing right now? Emphasis on Kasich, the vp isn't as important. I think this would be a much different race, and that Kasich would do very well in debates with Clinton.

 

I tend to think Romney (the real Romney, not crazy guy talking to the Republican base Romney) would be doing well.

 

But at this point I don't think any Republican can win the Presidency until the party's internal squabbling is resolved.