POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread
 

We have only one Republican left, and (sorry Bernie supporters,) the Democratic race is essentially over as well, so I figured it's time for one consolidated thread.

The media are going to drive this as a neck and neck race no matter what.

I have to say, seeing that Sanders won't give up, this has to be up there with "worst possible scenarios" for Hillary, especially with the "it's my turn" narrative that's formed around her.

Sorry about the size.

We won't see good state polling for a while, but I wonder if Johnson could make headway in some states like Utah where Trump has really high unfavorables. We haven't had a third party get a real electoral college vote in my lifetime.

After seeing that and imagining people's responses, reading this was amusing:

Still panicked about Donald Trump? Don’t be - The Boston Globe

Nate Silver actually analyzed why Clinton and Trump are neck and neck and concluded that a lot of it are Sanders' supporters who recently decided to answer poll questions as undecided rather than they'd vote Clinton in the two person race (as they seemingly did until recently).

The Hidden Importance Of The Sanders Voter | FiveThirtyEight


It appears that as Sanders is clearly about to lose, the Sanders supporters' unfavorable views of Clinton have spiked (from about ~54% unfavorable in mid-April to ~62% now). That will likely change when Sanders is actually eliminated and backs Clinton.

Similarly, Trump's negatives within the GOP almost certainly spiked right around the time that Cruz and Kasich abandoned ship. Since then, Trump has put some energy into reminding conservatives how much they hate HRC, and that has affected those numbers as well. He has moved some #NeverTrump to #NeverHillary, but I would also suspect that he's gone about as far as he can go there.

How certain are you that Sanders is going to back Clinton after he's eliminated? Just like Trump's track record makes it hard to know whether he means the things he's said or whether he's just playing the GOP base for rubes and dumbfucks, Sanders' track record is not especially friendly to the Democratic establishment.

His legacy as mayor of Burlington rested on the cooperation of Republicans after Democrats on the city council openly resisted him, and he's spent his time the Senate as an independent. Yes, he caucuses with the Democrats, but this isn't a profile of a presidential candidate who's going to run to the party with open arms after he's formally eliminated.

Clinton getting Sanders' support probably hinges on how hard she fights him on the platform committee at the convention. If there's open resistance to his efforts to drag the party leftward, then there's probably no unity overtures coming from his camp.

I don't think so. I think there's a lot of anti-Trump Republicans, who, over the course of the next several months, may yet be moved into the anti-Hillary voting camp.

I recall how many anybody-but-Romney people moved over to vote the Rom-Com after he wrapped up the nomination. I suspect Trump will benefit from a similar snowball of growing, if begrudging, voter support.

Isn't Sanders on record as saying that on her worst day HRC is better than any Republican candidate?

The polls consistently show the same percentage of Sanders voters who say they won't support Clinton as the percentage of 2008 Clinton voters said they wouldn't support Obama. Once the race is over, that will change and return to equilibrium.

I'm getting the sense that the RNC and Trump are uniting on a kitchen-sink strategy against Clinton -- just throw everything at her and see what sticks. They seem to be playing entirely to the Republican base that hates Clinton. That strategy failed the last two times. I don't know how you win an election in this environment without playing to moderates and independents.

I don't think there's a chance on God's green earth the Libertarian candidate gets 10%, but it's worth noting that Trump is losing big in any poll with a third name on the ballot. Johnson or whoever gets the nod could very easily suck up just enough votes to tip a close race.

Also, if the Libertarian Party really wanted to gain some traction, would it kill them to bring in a ringer? Johnson is the most respectable name they have it. But would it kill them to find a Libertarian leaning Republican as their nominee? The requirements to run for the party nominee are pretty low -- you need to have a website and pay the membership dues

Im already tired of the anti-trump, anti-hillary rhetoric.

Its going to be a long year,

Clown Trump and Corrupt Hillary are setting us up for future injects from far-wing politics to get involved. Both of these people are willing to throw the baby out with the bath water for a vote. And that's all we got left. We are so dumb. We had 300 million people to choose from. We narrowed it down to these two. We're so fucked.

Well they ran Bob Barr back in 2008 and he did even worse than the generic candidates do. Not only did he pick up zero votes from non Libs but his nmination likely pissed off a lot of hard core Libertarians. But as far as Johnson goes him and Weld (his vp pick) they both have 8 years of executive experience. Sure beats reality star with some general or something.

So what you're saying, Dutch, is you're longing for the days of an inspirational candidate like Obama, right? :D

Well, I never called him crooked or a clown, if that helps. :)

Maybe. But that doesn't mean he's going to work to get her elected, or that the college kids supporting him will maintain their enthusiasm for Clinton.

Sanders has also said that it's Clinton's job to win over his supporters, not his to deliver them to her. So, y'know...many of them may "come home" for the reason you cite above, but an awful lot of young people just don't care for Hillary Clinton, either.

Different dynamic from the Republican Party which skews older, skews whiter, and still has a hate-on for the Clinton name.

Sanders will get on board is Clinton is brave enough to have Warren on the ticket. He will get on board in most cases anyway, and he will be needed to campaign for her if the Dems really want to win.

No way Warren should be VP. MA has a GOP governor, so that would make winning the Senate that much more difficult.

That, and you don't want your ideological firebrands in the Prez or VP spots. You want them crafting the legislation that a friendly President signs. Kicking them upstairs effectively ends their long-term ability to press for your principles.

The campaigns are starting to use snapchat filters to mock each other.

Living in the future is kind of stupid.

Scarier though? That these two were rather clearly the best options among those who ran out of that same 300 million.

That's way more fucked than them winning, under the circumstances.

-------

Sidebar thought though: honestly, off the top of my head, I can't come up with a single "ooh, I wish so-and-so would have run and won" prospect either.

I mean, not without getting into crazy shit like Ted Nugent or JiMGA ;)

Anytime I hear one of my friends say that will vote for someone because he (it's always a he) is "just like us," I tell them I want someone a hell of lot smarter than either one of us to be president.

Even though we're on opposite sides of the spectrum, I'm with JIMGA on coming up with a name that I wish were on the ballot instead. Everyone has warts these days. We have fucked up the political process in the country to the point that generally only maniacal headcases want to run for even the smallest of offices. We had a guy here in Kansas City who seemed pretty much on a track for governor resign and completely walk away from politics because his family hated it.

You really have to have something wrong with you to want to be president today. I just hope the something wrong with you is that you're an egotistical jackass and not that you're a raging sociopath.

The reliance on fundraising is so extreme that the most successful candidates are those who are comfortable with essentially acting as salespeople 100% of the time. Not that I have anything wrong with salespeople, of course, but it just means it's now all a homogeneous game of one-upmanship.

And there there you have it. Give the Libertarians the once in a lifetime chance to possibly poll at the 15% threshold to get in the debates...

Ouch: Libertarian Frontrunner Gary Johnson Gets Booed at Party's Convention - Leah Barkoukis

Boo! Let's get someone in there who can get under 0.5% of the vote again!!!!

While on the democratic side Hillary may have been the better of the options (or least worse), on the republican side that asshole was far from the best choice. The problem is that there were too many candidates jumping in that clown car. If there were few candidates at the start he would have been done early without getting any momentum. Think of it like the American Idol vote for the worst group, when there are many contestants it's easy for them to have an impact.

Sad election years with these choices.

Heh, similarly, I looked at the GOP race like Survivor where the goal early was go eliminate the weak and as the field narrowed the next goal was to eliminate the strong and then you wound up with a bunch of people at the end that you were convinced wouldn't make it into the 'Elite 8' much less the Finals.

Actually the problem seemed much more one of too many clowns jumping into a bus and making it a clown car.

A hodgepodge of pseudocons & flawed candidates that revealed their issues one by one.

I will agree that a less crowded field would have likely benefitted one or more of the wannabes though. The less they had to do, they less opportunity to expose themselves they would have had. One by one, those who might have had a legitimate shot and been a halfway decent candidate cracked under the pressure trying to keep up with Trump created.

He was the last guy to crack, and that was more than enough to win in that field.

C'mon, Trump has exposed himself more than a Times Square flasher. It didn't make a bit of difference. He's been given the golden ticket to the finals.

This.

It's a sad indictment of our society. The same people crowing the most about how "great" that asshole is would be those complaining/mocking the most if some reality show douchebag was the nominee of the other party.

Trump only slipped up significantly a couple of times during the whole campaign afaic. The rest of the time he was, basically, a kinder & gentler version of me.

Granted, he eventually slipped right off the cliff with me and crashed onto the rocks below, but on the whole was still one of the most appealing candidates in terms of statements & positioning I've seen in a very long time.

Honestly, quite possibly in my entire lifetime.

So take someone like Clooney, who comes from a well respected political family. Who has been involved in a great number of civic activities and who has very definite political opinions. He's well liked, well dressed, well spoken, has a very balanced and well respected wife and yet he'd be vilified, written off, shouted down and treated like a complete joke by those who think Trump is the great savior of America.

Reason number #1,345 why the vacuous support Trump is mocked.

Gary Johnson has officially won the Libertarian nomination for president. The selection of his VP is yet to be determined; Libertarians seem to hate William Weld, but the rest of their candidates are nuttier than a granola bar.

I get the appeal of the libertarian party, but I don't think most libertarians do. I tend to know two different libertarians: disaffected conservatives who believe the GOP is too liberal; and burned out hippies who went to smoke a lot of pot without getting hassled by the man. How these two groups end up on the same page is beyond me.

Then again, I know a liberal who always felt the Democrats were too moderate and went so far to the left that he became a 9/11 truther and an Obama birther, so go figure.

We can agree to disagree on this one.

Explanation?

Going to guess:

1. Muslim
2. Defended Julian Assange
(3. British?)

That's why it's absolutely pointless to discuss these things (and I agree to disagree). Because people are going to make that disgusting straw-man argument.

In general I think a lot of people are going to not respect her solely for that. Maybe not you personally, but with all the Obama = sekrit Muslim and Ban All Muslim sentiments? Seems a safe bet she wouldn't go over well as a first lady.

Or you could've just ignored that comment and responded to my question.

I'm not going to speculate on what Jim thinks on whether or not she is respected or balanced. We can simply look to her actions, the groups that she supports.

She was lucky enough to come from a family that was able to get out of Lebanon when Syria was actively subverting the country. You could argue that she's as much self made as Trump is. A high profile lawyer who specializes in international law, and civil rights issues.

I'd say that she is probably more well respected than Clinton is in many circles. I don't think she's ever caused a national or international incident and she's probably never been accused of being unstable or insecure.

By my own definition, it's really hard to argue against anything but well respected and balanced. Which is something you can't say about the Trumps.

Lobbing insults and running away is what he does now, apparently.

It's utterly pointless. These days, with many on the left, everything is identity politics. If you dare even hint that you don't agree, then the response is to assume it's because you're racist. In this case, she isn't even Muslim. But that's the immediate response.

I didn't respond in full because I knew that no matter what I wrote, that would be the assumption anyway. It just isn't worth it. People have gone so far into identity politics that there's absolutely nothing they would listen to anyway.

You can look up her family on your own. I did when she became a big name and I don't think they deserve respect. You can make your own conclusions. Debate is just too difficult amongst all the race-baiting.

The #chickentrump stuff on twitter is pretty funny

So is random unsupported character assassination, but you seem perfectly OK with that.

I'm guessing you don't like her family's anti-Israel views.

For years now you've been a whiny bitch in political threads because people call you out on your unsupported assertions. Not because of your views.

I'd tell you that if you can't handle people calling you out on your bullshit, or even just asking you for an explanation of your views, maybe you should stop posting in political threads, but then you'd accuse me of being a typical leftist and trying to silence dissent, so whatever. Do what you want. And keep whining. It's entertaining.

This thread just jumped the shark.

I didn't think we'd get into the personal merits of George Clooney's wife in the presidential election thread until at least page 4 or so.

I had $25 on page 5. :(

Ok, she may be part of the Druze sect, but is [mis]identified as Muslim on Wiki.

At any rate, she has been labeled as being anti-Israel. "Amal Alamuddin: George Clooney's Anti-Israel Druze Arab Chick." "George Clooney’s Anti-Israel Fiancée Appointed to U.N. Gaza Probe." So if not actually Muslim, perceived as in league with them.

(Or yeah, what flere pointed out a couple of hours ago.)

So basically, you were wrong but ultimately right because...racism. :)

I guess you can't win Amal

That was good Steve, that was very good.

My point is that Clooney, as dashing, handsome and rich as he is, just isn't good enough to be president because he lacks a certain orange hued skin tone or the ability to, you know, make up crazy shit to get people excited enough to vote for him. #notarealcandidate

Everyone should just relax and breathe

Not really, and I don't know what flere added, though I can guess from the reaction that it was his usual shtick where I'm concerned (it's fun having a personal troll).

It's tangentially related in that it's been reported on several occasions that she and her family are antisemitic. But I'm more reacting to the instant assumption that if someone doesn't agree with you, it must be because of race because one couldn't possibly have a reasonable objection. And a little funny because while all the guesses were about racism, none were correct.

The issue itself is silly. What's there to debate? Maybe the accuracy of the reports, but that's really hard to do from here. The issue itself with her family is the reports themselves. It's not like debating political policy. What was predictable and disappointing was the reaction from the left simply to saying that I don't respect the family. I couldn't possibly have a rational reason - it must be blind racist hatred because I'm not on the left.

You react to the "left" like me claiming everything Jon says is the opinion of everyone on the "right".

so which is it? Do you have a personal troll or does everyone on the left hate you and your ideas?

I hope you can see how turning one posters comments into a general statement about all posters (on the left) is absurd and foolish (despite being typical of what is happening all over).

I think your analysis and ideas are good and I am grateful for your political contributions. If anything, I respect you less because of your tv show preferences :p

I think I only have one troll here. Certainly the board (from the political polls) leans more left than average, but most of you can separate ideology from personal stuff. There is far too much identity politics these days, though.

But it is a left thing these days to try and shout down dissent with racist accusations (and ironic that my reasons for not respecting the Alamuddin family are reports of racism - in other words, I completely agree that race is a poor excuse to dislike someone). So I was quick to jump on Cuervo because it was what I expected when I posted that I just didn't agree with Pilot's assertion that her family was respectable. Apologies if you are on the left and felt Cuervo shouldn't have done that and thus I am tarring you with too broad a brush. I was "setting a trap," so to speak, to make a point. Not always the best course of action, but I'm hardly perfect myself.

And WTF? The Facts of Life is an underrated classic.

FWIW, I included Muslim because from what I've gathered in the MONSTER Middle East thread from years ago and a few other threads that Jim is pretty darned pro-Israel. So if someone is Muslim* it's not a leap to assumed they might be perceived as anti-Israeli.

Also FWIW, "Muslim" isn't a race, and I don't believe I implied that it was one.


* Which she may not be so yes, I posted incorrect info.

But that's exactly the point - you remember something you don't like about a person (pro-Israel's self-determination in this case) and you assume racism or some similar -ism. That you don't even see the problem with that assumption is a problem with many on the left these days.

Why in the world would I dislike a family simply because they are or aren't Islamic? I know I've posted in other political threads that Islamophobia is bad because the overwhelming percentage of Muslims do not support terrorism. And I know I've been fairly negative about Trump since the beginning of his candidacy. Why doesn't that count, too, when you're preparing that knee-jerk response? You flat out accused me of being a racist - and you were so anxious to jump in with that nasty accusation that didn't even get the religion right.

What are your assumptions about Clooney's wife's antisemitism based on? I've never heard about that but feel like you should back if up if you're taking this position about what assumptions others make about you. I can understand it being frustrating when someone assumes you're anti-Muslim, but aren't you doing the same kind of thing with her? (Or is there something concrete out there regarding her views?).

Where do I in plain words accuse you of being racist? Having a bias against a religion, yes. And I may have been overzealous in that (rather pithy) assumption. But I don't think it's a stretch or necessarily an accusation of racism to think that someone who is pro-Israeli to the extent that you seem to be wouldn't be a little leery of a Lebanese Muslim (not someone raised in Dearborn, but born in Lebanon).

Also, it's not that I'm even anti-pro-Israeli. I'm not really all that enamored with either side in that disagreement, I think they've both been guilty of wrongs. Just the fact that I've remembered that stance...I mean, who's the one who is labeling people and seeing "leftists" around every corner? Obviously you're making characterizations of posters you haven't agreed with.

Yeah the doxing is kind of lame, even though many of us know your real name.

I also think that it is ironic that the complaint is that "the left" focuses on identity politics, when I think there's a fairly solid argument that policy initiatives of "the right" have sought for years to divide and place people into categories. English first, immigration crack downs, gender and sexual orientation identity based policies and voting laws are just a few examples. While I think the R word is thrown around way too much, I don't think it should be a shock when historically marginalized groups fire back with labeling after being labeled for years.

Right back at ya, baby.

You hate being stereotyped by the left and consistently ask people to be judged on their own merits, yet in this situation you're happy to use aggregated gossip to pass judgment on a person whose politics happen to disagree with your own.

Can you not see the hypocrisy, maybe?

How can people fall for this nonsense?

Then why even fucking bring it up if you are not willing to back your assertions with anything but "there are reports" that the family does some unknown thing? I mean, what now we have to research YOUR arguments for you? Yeah, sounds good.

This, specifically, is my problem with you. For years you have posted unsupported assertions and then complained when people cited facts undermining them. To the point that you felt you were being trolled and put me on ignore.

You have absolutely zero intellectual honesty.

Relevant.

Also note that on the next page the conversation continues with Greg and some others, who are willing to engage on the actual facts.

People sure are passionate about Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. 'Murica!

This is like foreplay before getting to the real thing, Dutch.

Oh, shit, let me get my popcorn ready. :)

/tries to figure how popcorn could factor into foreplay...

I think it's fairly similar to what Sanders is selling now and what Obama was selling in '08. Trump just has a different manner of speaking that is pretty unique for a major politician in the U.S. - unpolished, brash, mean-spirited. But a lot of us were similarly exasperated when Obama was charming the pants of people in '08 with catchphrases and vague promises and when Sanders promises that he'll fix everything and that we'll become Denmark by 2020.

(Edit: And I like how the Obama presidency turned out, but I still think his '08 campaign was filled with Trump-like bullshit and dishonest emotional manipulation of voters, and that we really should have been able to predict where we were headed in 2016 in terms of what kinds of candidates appealed to us.)

Well, now I'm intrigued.


All politicians pander to some extent. I think Trump & Sanders are pandering more than usual.

I agree there's a similarity between how people affixed their (often not reasonable) hopes & dreams on Obama on 2008 to how people are doing the same with Trump & Sanders now.

But, a difference, I think, is that while Obama was, as you point out, vague about his promises, you have to admit that Trump and Sanders have been pretty specific on a number of points. Points that can't really be realized when in office (though maybe the wall could happen).

Interesting take on the #OkayIGuessTrump movement within the GOP

The most depressing moment of the 2016 race - The Washington Post

I think it's super-interesting who is "all in" denying and castigating Trump, and who is hedging bets. I honestly do wonder what it would mean for the party if a sizable fraction of its movers and shakers sit this one out and he goes on to win anyway. The internet makes these paper trails so much easier to follow than decades ago.

The popcorn is in preparation for what comes next. I know, I know, more to think about...

It is interesting. I do think it falls into the camp of those who are quick to dismiss the Trump movement as having no chance. I admit to being a popcorn watcher of the Trump show during the primary process, but now that he's one of two serious candidates, his chances frighten me more than a little bit. I say that as one who has definite questions about Clinton as a candidate and president, but can easily come to the conclusion that there's no real alternative in supporting Trump (and not ideologically aligned enough with the Libertarian party to go that route).

I don't think the libertarian party is quite there yet.

James Weeks Strips at Libertarian Party National Convention Drops out of race for Chairman 5/29/16 - YouTube

At the end of the day, there is something to the Establishment. Maybe they aren't as corrupt as we've been led to believe...

I would think Trump only because I don't think there's hardly any Democratic - Libertarian crossover. I could be really wrong on that, though.

I would think it would hurt Trump too -- I think there are more Republicans looking for a third option than there are Democrats, and I think they are more likely to land on one. I think most of the Dems will eventually fall in line.

So Clinton and Trump are polling very close right now, both in the national polls, and in the states (relative to how we'd expect they'd do in those states). Is this a toss-up race right now? The online gambling odds and predictit still have Clinton as a comfortable favorite, but Trump has been underestimated by gamblers and commentators since the beginning. Are we really at maybe 50% or greater likelihood of President Trump?

Pure conjecture here, but I don't think we can really take anything from the polls until at least after the conventions. Back before the primaries 538 pointed out that the polls (for the primaries at least) don't really have any validity until the last 2 weeks before the first primary because of the large % of people who haven't made up their mind until then.

Having said that, I think anyone who categorically thinks Trump does not have a chance is wrong. We'll know more maybe after the conventions, but I suspect he absolutely has a chance.

Edit: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/art...in_130676.html

Polls (for comparison):

Here's 2012: RealClearPolitics - Election 2012 - General Election: Romney vs. Obama

2008: RealClearPolitics - Election 2008 - General Election: McCain vs. Obama

Although I don't think that clears anything up, to be honest. Trump is basically right where McCain and Romney were on June 1st.

As we said with the GOP Primary, it's all about whether his polls hold up. Given that the only evidence we have is that they did (for the primary) I think you have to assume for now that they will (for the general), until something else hard & factual comes along.

I don't think so, but I've been wrong before about Trump.

We have two extremely unpopular candidates. One is facing a trial over what seems like a scam university and the other really does have serious problems ahead over the email issue.

Assigning odds seems impossible. You can still get 30-to-1 on Biden.

You would be quite surprised then. The GOP aligns in theory with the Libertarian party on economic principles but basically zero in practice. However the Democratic Party aligns quite a bit more on social issues in both theory and practice with the Libertarians. I think I have read Johnson could hurt Hillary worse... Goes to search Internet for link.

While I could believe this, I had been under the impression that actual voting crossover was mainly restricted to Republicans.


This is what I'm talking about. I'm open to seeing some sort of analysis which indicates potential crossover, but I haven't actually seen it. If you find something, it'll definitely be interesting.

There seems to be a lot of Sanders supporters who see Clinton as the world's worst human and are just deciding between Trump, a third party candidate, or staying home. There's no way to translate that vocal sentiment into what they'll actually do in November though.

Yeah I think Ron Paul is the reason in recent years though Sanders seemed to have a youthful groundswell as well that might fire back at Hillary through Johnson instead of Trump. My five minute search turned up quite a few links but on further review they all basically push an agenda... Sites like Britbert and Fox News saying "don't worry Johnson will pull just as much from Hillary as trump" while liberal sites saying the exact opposite. The polls with and without Johnson though seem to take 3-4 percent from each candidate for what it's worth.

At the local level, Libertarians seem to pull more from the GOP than the Dems, but those libertarians are generally making a fiscal only approach to the campaign. I think Johnson has positioned himself more to the left than these libertarians and thus is better suited to steal from both sides. Of course, if he ever becomes a threat and makes the debates, I think it'll be easier for Hillary to pitch to disaffected Dems why Johnson shouldn't be a consideration than it will be for Trump to do the same thing.

The email is a political problem, but there is zero chance it becomes a legal problem. The recent State Department report basically said it was poor judgement, but everyone for years had been doing the same thing.

Umm ... you do see kind of the flaw in this particular point as proof there's no legal issue, right?

Fox, guarding hen house, etc etc.

I mean, I don't actually expect anyone to actually do anything to her ... but given the circumstances a report from that particular quarter saying "there's nothing to see here" isn't exactly the most credible evidence either.

I won't get into whether there should be legal action as that debate would be fruitless for both of us. I'm just saying that there isn't going to be any legal action. One, the FBI would be extremely reticent to inject themselves into the campaign after the nominations and two, they aren't going to go down a road where they prosecute thirty of forty State employees over the past twenty years.

If they haven't done anything by now, they aren't going to do anything before the election other than maybe issue a stern report.

Lazy negligent conduct isn't necessarily criminal. And in fact it's usually not. It's been frustrating to read all the "analysis" of whether she should be charged. You need to prove very specific things and specific intents to fit existing criminal statutes, especially for non-violent administration-related stuff like this. I haven't seen any analysis cite actual statutes and caselaw interpreting statutes. You can't charge based on morality, or, as a Salon.com columnist specifically called for, charge based on a political desire to see a different person as the party nominee for president.

Well that's inspiring. She's not a criminal, just lazy and negligent. Perfect qualifications!