2016 Election Thread

[Squirrel]

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.

Obama couldn't get much done? I think it's more that Congress refused to do its job despite Obama's attempts. People are angry about ineffectiveness and look to Trump because he's outside Washington. This because of Mitch McConnell and Republican leadership's plan to obstruct. That's been their strategy for a long time. Actually, this goes back to Newt Gingrich in the 90s. When I said this was their doing, it wasn't just in that they didn't stand up to Trump earlier because actual principles, it's because they intentionally didn't do their jobs. They created this atmosphere. And while I don't hold the Democrats blameless in this, I put more of the blame on Republican Party leadership.

[PseudoSABR]

Obama used his political capital on health care, withdrawal from Iraq, student loans, bailout, etc.   I think Obama got quite a bit "done" but the outcome currently is politically mixed, though I believe in the long run will be seen as overwhelmingly positive. 

[biggentleben]

 

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. 

 

That's how Republicans have been campaigning since a guy with dark skin got in the office. "Can you believe what that guy put into law?! He/she is part of his party! You don't want to support that, so vote for me!" I know because our useless Rep in SD had no other campaign message.

[Shane Wahl]

 

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.

 

True, though the only shot the GOP really had was state-based, and that would mean some combo of Bush/Rubio and Kasich. Flipping Ohio and Florida was one way to alter the map.

[ashbury]

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.  

As a result of the feedback, I'll change the layout a little. Her *campaign* should embrace this opportunity to position the election as the "change" election that a majority seems to want it to be.

 

It may be true that Hillary herself should not lead the vanguard. But she should be on board with it (not just as a desirable outcome from long coat tails but something to be actively strived for) and adopt its general tone. There are plenty of surrogates on the campaign trail who can hit harder on the Contract With America theme. Elizabeth Warren certainly never seems to have a problem with asserting herself (then again she's not running for president). Joe Biden, Bill Clinton, Bernie Sanders, and Barack Obama can lay out the anti-gridlock platform in district after district, and see if they can't achieve something. "There's always another house election in two years" seems like a strong safety argument to voters who don't want Trump and don't want paralysis.

[ashbury]

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. 

Or constitutional scholars, I imagine.

[Brock Beauchamp]

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.

Yeah. The sad thing about Romney is that I believe he'd be a competent president. Unfortunately, to make it through the primaries he had to turn into Bizarro Romney to placate the base. It's a fundamental problem with the GOP right now. Only crazy people or people pretending to be crazy can make it to a general election.

[TheLeviathan]

 

Yeah. The sad thing about Romney is that I believe he'd be a competent president. Unfortunately, to make it through the primaries he had to turn into Bizarro Romney to placate the base. It's a fundamental problem with the GOP right now. Only crazy people or people pretending to be crazy can make it to a general election.

 

Those same crazy people also abandon the candidate when they abandon that rhetoric.  The need to keep feeding red meat to that base is why they keep losing the Presidency.  

 

You can keep control of the House that way and keep the Senate in play, but it may be awhile before the Presidency is even on the table for Republicans until they stop giving in to that loud, influential base.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Those same crazy people also abandon the candidate when they abandon that rhetoric.  The need to keep feeding red meat to that base is why they keep losing the Presidency.  

 

You can keep control of the House that way and keep the Senate in play, but it may be awhile before the Presidency is even on the table for Republicans until they stop giving in to that loud, influential base.

Oh, definitely. It's not as if Romney was able to distance himself from some of the more radical primary statements once he won the nomination. He was fighting tepid support from the base throughout the campaign, which forced him to continue swinging way right of his regular positions, the positions that made him a moderately popular Republican in one of the bluest states in the country.

[nicksaviking]

 

Yeah. The sad thing about Romney is that I believe he'd be a competent president. Unfortunately, to make it through the primaries he had to turn into Bizarro Romney to placate the base. It's a fundamental problem with the GOP right now. Only crazy people or people pretending to be crazy can make it to a general election.

 

Same thing happened to McCain. Bush ruined it for the party as he gave the lunatic fringe a voice and now they expect it to be heard. If they don't get their way, they're A-OK ruining it for the rest of the party.

 

I will give Trump credit in that he's the first Republican nominee of the last three that didn't change his rhetoric upon getting the nomination. Of course in this case it's the candidate simply saying crazy s*%& the whole way through instead of only during the primaries.

[TheLeviathan]

Bush was part of it, I'd argue the Tea Party surge that was successful and invited in by the Republicans was the real turning point.  You invited those crazy people into your house, now you can't evict them and it's killing your ability to do anything other than clutch to one half of Congress.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Bush was part of it, I'd argue the Tea Party surge that was successful and invited in by the Republicans was the real turning point.  You invited those crazy people into your house, now you can't evict them and it's killing your ability to do anything other than clutch to one half of Congress.

I'd say the Tea Party was the most recent - and possibly the most damaging - scourge of the party but it's been snowballing for awhile.

 

1. Nixon started it with his appeal to southerners, who began losing faith in the Democrats during the New Deal and through the Civil Rights Act.

 

2. Reagan cautiously nurtured these people and started lending an ear to the pro-life whackadoos, which gave them a foothold and a platform to continue radicalizing.

 

3. George HW Bush continued that trend, using less caution and lending more of his ear to these people.

 

4. Gingrich blew the door wide open with a platform of obstructionism, one the Tea Party revitalized in a big, bad way.

 

5. Dubya was somewhat temperate as president but how he got there in the primaries and catering fully to these people was pretty despicable and a huge step forward for their movement. This is where they began to call the shots.

 

6. The Tea Party. Blech. No need to comment on this movement.

[Vanimal46]

Warren Buffett proves Donald's full of bleep once again by releasing his own tax information while currently being under audit. 

[Craig Arko]

This is perfect.

 

[Squirrel]

 

I'd say the Tea Party was the most recent - and possibly the most damaging - scourge of the party but it's been snowballing for awhile.

 

1. Nixon started it with his appeal to southerners, who began losing faith in the Democrats during the New Deal and through the Civil Rights Act.

 

2. Reagan cautiously nurtured these people and started lending an ear to the pro-life whackadoos, which gave them a foothold and a platform to continue radicalizing.

 

3. George HW Bush continued that trend, using less caution and lending more of his ear to these people.

 

4. Gingrich blew the door wide open with a platform of obstructionism, one the Tea Party revitalized in a big, bad way.

 

5. Dubya was somewhat temperate as president but how he got there in the primaries and catering fully to these people was pretty despicable and a huge step forward for their movement. This is where they began to call the shots.

 

6. The Tea Party. Blech. No need to comment on this movement.

Yeah, I'd say #4 was the biggest turning point ... from which there was no return. The others there was still a chance to ... move away from that ... but Gingrich reinforced the inroads of radicalization of the party. And #5 ... while Dubya was somewhat temperate, the people around him were not. And while I'm only speaking from my thought process, those around him were mostly running things and he was never his own voice. Not even really sure what his own voice was.

[Craig Arko]

I'd say the Tea Party was the most recent - and possibly the most damaging - scourge of the party but it's been snowballing for awhile.

 

1. Nixon started it with his appeal to southerners, who began losing faith in the Democrats during the New Deal and through the Civil Rights Act.

I remember those heady days when George Wallace was a Democrat. I suppose the modern day Tea Party basically are the Southern Democrats of that era.

[nicksaviking]

Trump's attacking any and all Republican's now. Tweets everywhere including this one:

 

"Disloyal R's are far more difficult than Crooked Hillary. They come at you from all sides. They don't know how to win - I will teach them," he tweeted.

 

This is awesome, he's going to do something "yuge" and  irreconcilable for his party I can just feel it.

 

Also, anyone know what happens if Trump refuses to go the the last debate? Does Clinton still get to go and do a solo improve show? Because at this point, my money is on Trump not doing it, perhaps trying to do his live Twitter commentary like he did during the RNC debate he skipped.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/11/politics/donald-trump-paul-ryan-tweets/index.html

 

If the Republican's are already ceding the White House, but are still worried about losing House and Senate seats, shouldn't they all start endorsing Clinton now, simply in an attempt to get more of their faithful out to the polls? Because seriously, the people Trump are turning off are more likely to not go out to vote at all unless there is some kind of implicit message from their leaders that it's OK to vote for the non-sociopath.

[nicksaviking]

Another thought, with Trump's history of creating lawsuits and threatening them, there's got to be a pretty big chance that he decides to sue somebody following this election trying to hold up the results even if/when it's a landslide.

[Brock Beauchamp]

I don't know the rules but were Trump to back out of the debate, I suspect Clinton would go scorched earth on him for a hot minute and then cancel the debate. The way things are shaking out, she doesn't even need to show up and tell the world about her policy uninterrupted. She can take a well-deserved night off, go buy some malt liquor, and get rip-roaring drunk.

 

Inversely, she could use that night to reach out to Republicans and give them an out, offer an olive branch. Basically, a presidential incumbent speech before the election even happens.

[Craig Arko]

Trump's attacking any and all Republican's now. Tweets everywhere including this one:

 

"Disloyal R's are far more difficult than Crooked Hillary. They come at you from all sides. They don't know how to win - I will teach them," he tweeted.

 

This is awesome, he's going to do something "yuge" and  irreconcilable for his party I can just feel it.

 

Also, anyone know what happens if Trump refuses to go the the last debate? Does Clinton still get to go and do a solo improve show? Because at this point, my money is on Trump not doing it, perhaps trying to do his live Twitter commentary like he did during the RNC debate he skipped.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/11/politics/donald-trump-paul-ryan-tweets/index.html

 

If the Republican's are already ceding the White House, but are still worried about losing House and Senate seats, shouldn't they all start endorsing Clinton now, simply in an attempt to get more of their faithful out to the polls? Because seriously, the people Trump are turning off are more likely to not go out to vote at all unless there is some kind of implicit message from their leaders that it's OK to vote for the non-sociopath.

Maybe they bring a life-size inflatable doll version of Mr. Trump to look scary in the background.

[Vanimal46]

 

Maybe they bring a life-size inflatable doll version of Mr. Trump to look scary in the background.

We still have this in inventory from Minnesota Twins Whine Line: Used Car Edition! 

 

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/3192935/wacky-inflatable-waving-man-o.gif

[Vanimal46]

 

I don't know the rules but were Trump to back out of the debate, I suspect Clinton would go scorched earth on him for a hot minute and then cancel the debate. The way things are shaking out, she doesn't even need to show up and tell the world about her policy uninterrupted. She can take a well-deserved night off, go buy some malt liquor, and get rip-roaring drunk.

 

Inversely, she could use that night to reach out to Republicans and give them an out, offer an olive branch. Basically, a presidential incumbent speech before the election even happens.

As much Clinton would salivate over the opportunity to go scorched earth on Trump, I don't think she should. Trump is doing a mighty fine job on his own scorching his chances at the election. She doesn't need to feed the trolls in Trump's camp and go down to his level. 

[nicksaviking]

 

I don't know the rules but were Trump to back out of the debate, I suspect Clinton would go scorched earth on him for a hot minute and then cancel the debate. The way things are shaking out, she doesn't even need to show up and tell the world about her policy uninterrupted. She can take a well-deserved night off, go buy some malt liquor, and get rip-roaring drunk.

 

Inversely, she could use that night to reach out to Republicans and give them an out, offer an olive branch. Basically, a presidential incumbent speech before the election even happens.

 

Yeah, she's got nothing to gain in terms of the election if she goes on without Trump, and again him not showing is only a random thought I pulled out of my butt.

 

But would she have to answer questions? Or could she put on a variety show and invite all the Republicans who have endorsed her over Trump to do skits and musical numbers? No doubt Glen Beck would show up and sing a duet, he can't resist the spotlight.

[Craig Arko]

Or they could call up Alec Baldwin.

[Brock Beauchamp]

As much Clinton would salivate over the opportunity to go scorched earth on Trump, I don't think she should. Trump is doing a mighty fine job on his own scorching his chances at the election. She doesn't need to feed the trolls in Trump's camp and go down to his level.

When I say "scorched earth ", I don't mean Trump style scorched earth. I mean riling him up with calling him a coward and the sort of stuff Clinton has generally avoided to this point.

[Vanimal46]

 

When I say "scorched earth ", I don't mean Trump style scorched earth. I mean riling him up with calling him a coward and the sort of stuff Clinton has generally avoided to this point.

It's sad that we have to clarify "scorched earth" and Trump style scorched earth.... I get what you mean though. 

[Squirrel]

 

Yeah, she's got nothing to gain in terms of the election if she goes on without Trump, and again him not showing is only a random thought I pulled out of my butt.

 

But would she have to answer questions? Or could she put on a variety show and invite all the Republicans who have endorsed her over Trump to do skits and musical numbers? No doubt Glen Beck would show up and sing a duet, he can't resist the spotlight.

I say she should go, and answer all the moderator questions without any time limitations or rebuttal. Don't go scorched Earth on him ... I agree with Van on that ... she doesn't need to. Let Trump put the final nails in his own coffin unaided completely by her.

[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.

It's happening...check out this tweetstorm from a (former) conservative in Wisconsin:

 

So let me get this straight: I, a conservative female, have spent years defending the Republican Party against claims of sexism. 1/

When I saw Republican men getting attacked I stood up for them. I came to their defense. I fought on their behalf. 2/

I fought on behalf of a movement I believed in. I fought on behalf of my principles while other women told me I hated my own sex. 3/

Not only charges of sexism, but I defended @marcorubio during Go8, I fought in my state to stop the @ScottWalker recall, etc...

Now some Trojan horse nationalist sexual predator invades the @GOP, eating it alive, and you cowards sit this one out? 5/

He treats women like dogs, and you go against everything I – and other female conservatives – said you were & back down like cowards. 6/

Get this straight: We don’t need you to stand up for us, YOU needed to stand up for us for YOU. For YOUR dignity. For YOUR reputation. 7/

Jeff Sessions says that he wouldn’t “characterize” Trump’s unauthorized groping of women as “assault.” Are you kidding me?! 8/

Others try to rebuke his comments, yet STILL choose to vote for a sexual predator - because let’s be honest, that’s what he is. 9/

"What he said is wrong, and the way he treats women is wrong, but it’s not wrong enough for me to not vote for him." Thanks, cowards. 10/

Various men in the movement are writing it off as normal, confirming every stereotype the left has thrown at them. So I'm done. 11/

I'm sooo done. If you can’t stand up for women & unendorse this piece of human garbage, you deserve every charge of sexism thrown at you. 12/

I’m just one woman, you won’t even notice my lack of presence at rallies, fair booths, etc., You won’t really care that I’m offended 13/

by your silence, and your inability to take a stand. But one by one you’ll watch more women like me go, & you’ll watch men of 14/

ACTUAL character follow us out the door. And what you’ll be left with are the corrupt masses that foam at the mouth every time you step 15/

Outside the lines. Men who truly see women as lesser beings, & women without self-respect. & your “guiding faith” & "principles" will be 16/

Attached to them as well. And when it’s all said and done, all you’ll have left is the party The Left always accused you of being. Scum. 17/

CC: @SpeakerRyan @tedcruz @marcorubio @SpeakerRyan @Reince And every other tool refusing to unendorse this monster. 17/X

[Craig Arko]

^^^ That's how to do scorched earth. She identifies the basket of deplorables.

[Squirrel]

 

It's happening...check out this tweetstorm from a (former) conservative in Wisconsin:

 

So let me get this straight: I, a conservative female, have spent years defending the Republican Party against claims of sexism. 1/

When I saw Republican men getting attacked I stood up for them. I came to their defense. I fought on their behalf. 2/

I fought on behalf of a movement I believed in. I fought on behalf of my principles while other women told me I hated my own sex. 3/

Not only charges of sexism, but I defended @marcorubio during Go8, I fought in my state to stop the @ScottWalker recall, etc...

Now some Trojan horse nationalist sexual predator invades the @GOP, eating it alive, and you cowards sit this one out? 5/

He treats women like dogs, and you go against everything I – and other female conservatives – said you were & back down like cowards. 6/

Get this straight: We don’t need you to stand up for us, YOU needed to stand up for us for YOU. For YOUR dignity. For YOUR reputation. 7/

Jeff Sessions says that he wouldn’t “characterize” Trump’s unauthorized groping of women as “assault.” Are you kidding me?! 8/

Others try to rebuke his comments, yet STILL choose to vote for a sexual predator - because let’s be honest, that’s what he is. 9/

"What he said is wrong, and the way he treats women is wrong, but it’s not wrong enough for me to not vote for him." Thanks, cowards. 10/

Various men in the movement are writing it off as normal, confirming every stereotype the left has thrown at them. So I'm done. 11/

I'm sooo done. If you can’t stand up for women & unendorse this piece of human garbage, you deserve every charge of sexism thrown at you. 12/

I’m just one woman, you won’t even notice my lack of presence at rallies, fair booths, etc., You won’t really care that I’m offended 13/

by your silence, and your inability to take a stand. But one by one you’ll watch more women like me go, & you’ll watch men of 14/

ACTUAL character follow us out the door. And what you’ll be left with are the corrupt masses that foam at the mouth every time you step 15/

Outside the lines. Men who truly see women as lesser beings, & women without self-respect. & your “guiding faith” & "principles" will be 16/

Attached to them as well. And when it’s all said and done, all you’ll have left is the party The Left always accused you of being. Scum. 17/

CC: @SpeakerRyan @tedcruz @marcorubio @SpeakerRyan @Reince And every other tool refusing to unendorse this monster. 17/X

Well, I wasn't scorched earth about it, but I did say that I found it desperate and cowardly ... no principles involved in that whatsoever. But man, well done.