POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[digamma]

I'm gonna go ahead and stand by my statement.

[Flasch186]

I just always don't understand the whole trust these women from twenty years ago.... But don't trust these women from 10 years ago. The only difference between them is who they're accusing. Both seem exactly the same in every other way. So either don't believe any of them or believe them all...

[digamma]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

From 1992. Trump met a 10 yr old girl on an ET segment. After she left, he turned to the camera and said he'd be dating her in 10 years.

More questionable footage of Trump's comments on women - CBS News

It's amazing that this became an after thought yesterday. If I was that little girl's (now woman's I guess), I'd want to rip his head off.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Support Trump and lose the middle, or dump trump and lose the base.

I'm not convinced that the Trump *supporters* are really "the base." A significant amount of *his* support base comes from people who didn't normally vote in Republican (or any other) primaries. Probably a better way to frame what's happening to the Republican Party is that there are multiple constituencies, and they are fractured--perhaps hopelessly. Trump's legacy is going to be destroying a Party. (In fairness, the ability for it to be destroyed was already there. It just took someone selfish enough to do it.)

[Ben E Lou]

Current trending topic: #NextFakeTrumpVictim

[Ben E Lou]

Prophecy:

This exchange is the set-up. The next week is going to be the punch line. pic.twitter.com/yppE7KHvvL

— Ben Shapiro (@benshapiro) October 10, 2016

[Easy Mac]

Is it still an October Surprise if no one is really surprised by what people are saying, even if we didn't know the news was going to come out?

[albionmoonlight]

Clinton has run a good campaign aimed toward moderate Republicans--"It's ok to not vote for Trump because he is a radical; he's not really a Republican." That almost encourages GOP ticket-splitting. Which was the right strategy when the race was 50-50 (which feels like two years ago but was really not that long ago).

But now that she's going to win, I think that she needs to dedicate her resources pretty aggressively toward the Senate. Her first four years will be a lot easier (and more likely to lead to four more years) if she has at least one legislative house to run interference for her.

And, hey, if the side effect of that is to increase the Hail Mary odds of flipping the House for two years? Then she has a chance to really get some stuff done.

She's going to be president. The question for her now is how she wants that presidency to go.

[larrymcg421]

Paul Ryan's two tweets today are about balanced budgets and international treaties.

[SirFozzie]

Who thought the Onion was going to call the 2016 election in late November 2012?

After Obama Victory, Shrieking White-Hot Sphere Of Pure Rage Early GOP Front-Runner For 2016 - YouTube

[rowech]

Rasmussen poll shows Trump back in the lead.

[QuikSand]

PredictIt gives a chance to buy Trump/GOP/non-woman at 17 cents, and I still think it's a buy. Might be tricky to know when to sell, but I don't think this chaotic election can actually calm down for even two weeks.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

PredictIt gives a chance to buy Trump/GOP/non-woman at 17 cents, and I still think it's a buy. Might be tricky to know when to sell, but I don't think this chaotic election can actually calm down for even two weeks.

What about a Jill Stein surprise?

[larrymcg421]

Isn't now the perfect time for Trump to release taxes? Only time they have a chance to get buried.

[mckerney]

Donald Trump Apologizes to Serbia for Yugoslavia Bombing

Donald with more pro-Russian foreign policy statements, what a surprise.

[mckerney]

I'm sure Hannity is gonna start pounding Trump over this though after Lumpy's constantly being outraged at Obama "apology tours."

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

I don't know if the timing can be considered "convenient" when women come forward immediately after he says live on TV that he has never assaulted a woman.

Exactly. The point is women are coming forward because he said something with great conviction in public that they knew to be completely false.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by rowech

Rasmussen poll shows Trump back in the lead.

So is Rasmussen a generally lean Reupblican/right/conservative site? So far just about every poll I've seen has Clinton ahead by at least five.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

So is Rasmussen a generally lean Reupblican/right/conservative site? So far just about every poll I've seen has Clinton ahead by at least five.

Rasmussen was 5 points to the right in their final 2012 poll.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Exactly. The point is women are coming forward because he said something with great conviction in public that they knew to be completely false.

But why are they coming out now when there's public proof of Trump taking about doing what he did to them and other women coming forward with the same stories instead of back when it happened when it would have just been there word against a famous billionaire who would have done everything he could to publicly attack and shame them. Just seems too suspicious and convenient...

[larrymcg421]

Trump Said to Block Campaign’s Requests to Do Self-Opposition Research - Bloomberg Politics

[molson]

When I heard about the new allegations my first thought was that Trump was going to defend himself by calling all of them pigfaces he'd never fuck with Bill Clinton's dick, or something. Has he done that yet?

[Edward64]

Hillary's master plan is now evident.

Roll out a sexual harassment victim every/other day to keep Trump on the defense and coordinate with the wiling networks to play it up. The wikileaks stuff is being overwhelmed by Trump's alleged sexual antics.

Where there is smoke, there is fire. Did Trump do every single thing alleged, maybe not but I'm sure he's guilty of alot of them.

[Subby]

Originally Posted by molson

When I heard about the new allegations my first thought was that Trump was going to defend himself by calling all of them pigfaces he'd never fuck with Bill Clinton's dick, or something. Has he done that yet?

Donald Trump on woman who accused him of sexual assault: "Look at her... I don't think so." https://t.co/4cgC3Zh91l pic.twitter.com/eOB42nRhkR

— Deadspin (@Deadspin) October 13, 2016

[Subby]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Hillary's master plan is now evident.

Roll out a sexual harassment victim every/other day to keep Trump on the defense and coordinate with the wiling networks to play it up. The wikileaks stuff is being overwhelmed by Trump's alleged sexual antics.

The master plan was to get the PGIC to run for president in the first place.

[mckerney]

It looks like Trump's speech today sure was something...

.@SpeakerRyan do you agree with your candidate for president that international banks are plotting to end US sovereignty?

— Adam Smith (@asmith83) October 13, 2016

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

PredictIt gives a chance to buy Trump/GOP/non-woman at 17 cents, and I still think it's a buy. Might be tricky to know when to sell, but I don't think this chaotic election can actually calm down for even two weeks.

I guess I'm too caught up in the narrative of the moment. But that strikes me as much more of a hold price than a buy.

I just can't see something happening at this point that would push that high enough to risk the downside of it falling out.

[albionmoonlight]

dola:

I have not looked yet, but I think that there might be money to be made going pro-GOP in individual senate races. The "GOP is doomed" noise is running counter to the actual senate polls.

And there might be some good arbitrage putting individual senate races against GOP/Dem control overall if one can pinpoint the races that will actually decide the overall control.

[stevew]

Trump is now making fun of the NFL re:Concussions. Not for how they ignored the problems, but for taking precautions over serious brain injuries.

The Republican presidential nominee said he was struck by the toughness of a woman who fainted and then returned to the audience, according to multiple reports.

"The woman was out cold, and now she's coming back," Trump told the crowd. "See? We don't go by these new and very much softer NFL rules. Concussion, oh! Oh! Got a little ding on the head, no, no, you can't play for the rest of the season. Our people are tough!"

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by stevew

Trump is now making fun of the NFL re:Concussions. Not for how they ignored the problems, but for taking precautions over serious brain injuries.

The Republican presidential nominee said he was struck by the toughness of a woman who fainted and then returned to the audience, according to multiple reports.

"The woman was out cold, and now she's coming back," Trump told the crowd. "See? We don't go by these new and very much softer NFL rules. Concussion, oh! Oh! Got a little ding on the head, no, no, you can't play for the rest of the season. Our people are tough!"

Well, that's not hard to do when they don't have the necessary equipment for a brain injury.

[Easy Mac]

I wonder what odds you could have gotten that the election would turn due to the actions of Billy Bush and Anderson Cooper, the one-time hosts of Let's Make a Deal and The Mole.

Of course, it makes sense that a Bush and a Vanderbilt have conspired to swing an election for the Clintons. Dynasties FTW!

[SirFozzie]

The NYT basically dunks on Trump's lawsuit threat:

Sydney Ember on Twitter: "David McCraw, NYT lawyer, responds to Trump’s letter. https://t.co/ziPBCIjkvP"

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I'm not convinced that the Trump *supporters* are really "the base." A significant amount of *his* support base comes from people who didn't normally vote in Republican (or any other) primaries. Probably a better way to frame what's happening to the Republican Party is that there are multiple constituencies, and they are fractured--perhaps hopelessly. Trump's legacy is going to be destroying a Party. (In fairness, the ability for it to be destroyed was already there. It just took someone selfish enough to do it.)

I suspect the GOP adopts a Super Delegate system? A closed primary system? Re-arranges the states so states like Texas or Utah go first?

I hate Clinton, but if it's a Clinton and GOP-controlled Congress (or at least a House), I'm OK with that. I suspect Clinton will be more moderate and pragmatic than Obama in working with Congress. I just hate how dirty and slimy everything and everyone is in this election cycle.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by Easy Mac

I wonder what odds you could have gotten that the election would turn due to the actions of Billy Bush and Anderson Cooper, the one-time hosts of Let's Make a Deal and The Mole.

Of course, it makes sense that a Bush and a Vanderbilt have conspired to swing an election for the Clintons. Dynasties FTW!

I loved the Mole

[Butter]

The first season of The Mole was amazing.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

I'm not convinced that the Trump *supporters* are really "the base." A significant amount of *his* support base comes from people who didn't normally vote in Republican (or any other) primaries.

While we often make very similar observations, this one is almost 180 degrees from what I'm seeing.

Off hand I can't think of a single lukewarm voter amongst the Trump supporters I know. It does, however, describe a good bit of the NeverTrump folks I've seen (not all by any means, just a noticeable portion).

What seems completely absent from the pro-Trump folks I know are the, I dunno, disaffected/disenfranchised crowd for lack of a better description. On the whole, it's overwhelmingly made up of lifelong voters, the ones that show up for every election, even the down ballot runoffs.

Could easily be a GA vs SC thing though.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I suspect the GOP adopts a Super Delegate system? A closed primary system? Re-arranges the states so states like Texas or Utah go first?

I hate Clinton, but if it's a Clinton and GOP-controlled Congress (or at least a House), I'm OK with that. I suspect Clinton will be more moderate and pragmatic than Obama in working with Congress. I just hate how dirty and slimy everything and everyone is in this election cycle.

1) The GOP already has superdelegates, they just make up a much lower percentage of the delegate count than their Democratic counterparts. I believe GOP "unbound delegates" are about 10% of the total, compared with Democratic superdelegates at about 20%.

2) Republicans had zero interest in working with Barack Obama. Ever. Take a look at the Republican use of the filibuster after Obama was sworn in. I'll wait. If Republicans had been actually interested in working with the President instead of threatening to burn down the government if they didn't get everything they wanted, and also a pony, they could have found common cause. Instead, they spent the first two years grinding the gears of government to a halt by filibustering bills, offering amendments, filibustering those amendments, ad infinitum.

And as soon as they took back the Senate, they shifted gears to "defund Obamacare." They spent 6 years pounding the pulpit, demanding a "repeal and replace," and we STILL HAVEN'T HEARD what that replacement is supposed to be, despite numerous assurances that "it's coming."

I know it's conservative orthodoxy that Barack Obama is the most liberal, obstinate, authoritarian empty suit ever, but the reality doesn't bear that out.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said "The president told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him. [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants."

Hatch immediately pivoted and fell in line with Mitch McConnell on "no hearings." McConnell, by comparison, insisted that it would be hard to find somebody "more liberal than" Garland.

That's the litmus. To Congressional Republicans, if Obama wants it, it's the most liberal thing ever. There can be no compromise, because if they meet him halfway on anything, they're acceding to liberalism, and after they've amped up the base on how socialist this President is, they don't dare compromise with him.

[SirFozzie]

Did Trump just go full on fascist/white supremacist?

First the international banker conspiracy, and now:

"Join me in taking back our country and creating a bright, glorious, and prosperous new future for our people. We will make American great again and it will happen quickly! God bless you!"

From this livestream:

NEXT LIVE - Donald Trump Rally LIVE in Cincinnati, OH. (10-13-16) - YouTube

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

1) The GOP already has superdelegates, they just make up a much lower percentage of the delegate count than their Democratic counterparts. I believe GOP "unbound delegates" are about 10% of the total, compared with Democratic superdelegates at about 20%.

2) Republicans had zero interest in working with Barack Obama. Ever. Take a look at the Republican use of the filibuster after Obama was sworn in. I'll wait. If Republicans had been actually interested in working with the President instead of threatening to burn down the government if they didn't get everything they wanted, and also a pony, they could have found common cause. Instead, they spent the first two years grinding the gears of government to a halt by filibustering bills, offering amendments, filibustering those amendments, ad infinitum.

And as soon as they took back the Senate, they shifted gears to "defund Obamacare." They spent 6 years pounding the pulpit, demanding a "repeal and replace," and we STILL HAVEN'T HEARD what that replacement is supposed to be, despite numerous assurances that "it's coming."

I know it's conservative orthodoxy that Barack Obama is the most liberal, obstinate, authoritarian empty suit ever, but the reality doesn't bear that out.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said "The president told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him. [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants."

Hatch immediately pivoted and fell in line with Mitch McConnell on "no hearings." McConnell, by comparison, insisted that it would be hard to find somebody "more liberal than" Garland.

That's the litmus. To Congressional Republicans, if Obama wants it, it's the most liberal thing ever. There can be no compromise, because if they meet him halfway on anything, they're acceding to liberalism, and after they've amped up the base on how socialist this President is, they don't dare compromise with him.

I don't disagree with you on the ACA. The House Republicans really brought this whole thing on themselves when they voted to pass it (yes, it would of still passed, but still), then go around saying they should repeal it. I can understand why Paul Ryan doesn't carry a lot of respect in certain circles of his base--it's hard to fight against something that you voted to pass.

Why is it okay for the Dems to block Supreme Court appointments in an election (Schumer led the fight in 2007), but not Republicans? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but should we hold both sides to the same standard? It's just politics as usual.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

Did Trump just go full on fascist/white supremacist?

First the international banker conspiracy, and now:

"Join me in taking back our country and creating a bright, glorious, and prosperous new future for our people. We will make American great again and it will happen quickly! God bless you!"

From this livestream:

NEXT LIVE - Donald Trump Rally LIVE in Cincinnati, OH. (10-13-16) - YouTube

Did he also make it sound like the one accuser wasn't attractive enough to sexually assault? WTF?!?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

1) The GOP already has superdelegates, they just make up a much lower percentage of the delegate count than their Democratic counterparts. I believe GOP "unbound delegates" are about 10% of the total, compared with Democratic superdelegates at about 20%.

2) Republicans had zero interest in working with Barack Obama. Ever. Take a look at the Republican use of the filibuster after Obama was sworn in. I'll wait. If Republicans had been actually interested in working with the President instead of threatening to burn down the government if they didn't get everything they wanted, and also a pony, they could have found common cause. Instead, they spent the first two years grinding the gears of government to a halt by filibustering bills, offering amendments, filibustering those amendments, ad infinitum.

And as soon as they took back the Senate, they shifted gears to "defund Obamacare." They spent 6 years pounding the pulpit, demanding a "repeal and replace," and we STILL HAVEN'T HEARD what that replacement is supposed to be, despite numerous assurances that "it's coming."

I know it's conservative orthodoxy that Barack Obama is the most liberal, obstinate, authoritarian empty suit ever, but the reality doesn't bear that out.

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) said "The president told me several times he’s going to name a moderate [to fill the court vacancy], but I don’t believe him. [Obama] could easily name Merrick Garland, who is a fine man. He probably won’t do that because this appointment is about the election. So I’m pretty sure he’ll name someone the [liberal Democratic base] wants."

Hatch immediately pivoted and fell in line with Mitch McConnell on "no hearings." McConnell, by comparison, insisted that it would be hard to find somebody "more liberal than" Garland.

That's the litmus. To Congressional Republicans, if Obama wants it, it's the most liberal thing ever. There can be no compromise, because if they meet him halfway on anything, they're acceding to liberalism, and after they've amped up the base on how socialist this President is, they don't dare compromise with him.

Spot-on post.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

I don't disagree with you on the ACA. The House Republicans really brought this whole thing on themselves when they voted to pass it (yes, it would of still passed, but still), then go around saying they should repeal it. I can understand why Paul Ryan doesn't carry a lot of respect in certain circles of his base--it's hard to fight against something that you voted to pass.

Why is it okay for the Dems to block Supreme Court appointments in an election (Schumer led the fight in 2007), but not Republicans? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but should we hold both sides to the same standard? It's just politics as usual.

What am I misremembering here? Who did Schumer try to block? Both Roberts and Alito were confirmed.

[RainMaker]

Evangelicals seem to be sticking with Trump through this. Can't wait for these people to lecture us on "family values" in the future.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Evangelicals seem to be sticking with Trump through this. Can't wait for these people to lecture us on "family values" in the future.

yeah I was reading a bit about that because I figured that tape had to be the last straw for some of them. And it was for a few. (check out Christianity Today magazine) But many believe Trump is their last chance of getting a conservative Supreme Court that will end abortion once and for all. So they go to the "we are all sinners" in God's eyes argument to explain away his behavior. Pretty sad watching guys like Jerry Falwell Jr. basically throw away all that he teaches because one issue might be saved from us liberal heathens.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Evangelicals seem to be sticking with Trump through this. Can't wait for these people to lecture us on "family values" in the future.

No, they really aren't. There's the guys like Russell Moore who have been against him from the beginning, and now names like Jen Hatmaker and Beth Moore have gone on the offensive against him. There's a large move against him from younger evangelicals. It's the political "evangelicals" like Falwell and Robertson, whose reach is much smaller than the media makes it out to be, that are striking up the band while the ship sinks. Just today a student and staff petition came out from Liberty students against Falwell's continued endorsement which contained a nugget about Trump only getting 8% of the vote there during the primary.

Evangelical Women Split From Trump

Donald Trump has Snuffed out the Religious Right

Liberty University Students Protest Association with Trump

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

No, they really aren't. There's the guys like Russell Moore who have been against him from the beginning, and now names like Jen Hatmaker and Beth Moore have gone on the offensive against him. There's a large move against him from younger evangelicals. It's the political "evangelicals" like Falwell and Robertson, whose reach is much smaller than the media makes it out to be, that are striking up the band while the ship sinks. Just today a student and staff petition came out from Liberty students against Falwell's continued endorsement which contained a nugget about Trump only getting 8% of the vote there during the primary.

Evangelical Women Split From Trump

Donald Trump has Snuffed out the Religious Right

Liberty University Students Protest Association with Trump

Polls show the number is pretty high.

PRRI

White evangelicals are 65-16 in favor of Trump.

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Polls show the number is pretty high.

PRRI

White evangelicals are 65-16 in favor of Trump.

What was the methodology for that survey? I didn't see it anywhere in the writeup, and it would be helpful to understand how young the poll skews.

I'm guessing a lot of that is the political "evangelical" more so that people like Hatmaker, Moore, and Liberty staff and students who would be more theological evangelicals.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Evangelicals seem to be sticking with Trump through this. Can't wait for these people to lecture us on "family values" in the future.

Michele Bachmann Warns Christians: Voting For Hillary Clinton Will Lead To Sexual Assaults | Huffington Post

[MrBug708]

Generally speaking, the only reason evangelicals* are is because of the Supreme Court and Roe v Wade.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Generally speaking, the only reason evangelicals* are is because of the Supreme Court and Roe v Wade.

This is true. Although gay marriage has made it into the landscape too.

I guess Trump does sort of match their beliefs since the Pro-Life movement has little to do with abortion and more to do with putting women in their place.