POTUS 2016 General Election Discussion Thread

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

It's crazy that I think just about any other Republican candidate could have beat Clinton in this election. The GOP picked the one guy who couldn't.

I don't think Cruz would've beat her. It would've been a very different campaign for sure. Kasich and Rubio would've destroyed her assuming the Trump voters didn't revolt.

[RainMaker]

Yeah I forgot about Cruz. He's so fucking unlikable but I think he'd be in a closer race.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I don't think Cruz would've beat her. It would've been a very different campaign for sure. Kasich and Rubio would've destroyed her assuming the Trump voters didn't revolt.

I don't think Christie would have either. Cruz certainly not (though he likely would have won the evangelical vote).Not Carson either. The others, even Jeb Bush would have run a "traditional" campaign and not have a new scandal every minute or say the racist/sexist/etc comments Trump used, and would have had a better chance against Clinton.

[mckerney]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

I don't think Christie would have either. Cruz certainly not (though he likely would have won the evangelical vote).Not Carson either. The others, even Jeb Bush would have run a "traditional" campaign and not have a new scandal every minute or say the racist/sexist/etc comments Trump used, and would have had a better chance against Clinton.

Given how big story the bridge closure would be right now I don't think Christie could have won.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

He's been a registered Republican since 2011. That's a pretty long con to pull.

Regardless, this is a dumb story. Looks like someone thought he had a weapon and yelled "Gun" (the same people who want open carry ironically). This caused the secret service and others to panic. He was rushed out and sent on his way.

It was more of a response to the 'Trump asked if was a paid plant...' line than a theory. But yes, agreed, in this instance tough to think it was anything other than your summary.

[Drake]

I've had half a dozen iterations of the meme "It took 8 months to review 35k emails and 8 days to review 650k. Something does not jive." splash across my Facebook this morning.

Part of me wants to explain to how data modeling works. Part of me wants to explain that I routinely use databases to process and analyze 100k rows in 20 minutes. Part of me wants to explain that the software that allows me to do that efficiently took a month to develop and work the bugs out, but it's been 100% rock solid for ten years since.

And then I remember who the audience is and just decide it isn't worth it. Not because it's political, but because it's like explaining magic or science or polling math to the illiterate.

[JPhillips]

It's hard to imagine what the campaign would look like with a different GOP candidate because the Russian/Wikileaks hacks wouldn't have happened.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's hard to imagine what the campaign would look like with a different GOP candidate because the Russian/Wikileaks hacks wouldn't have happened.

I figure Mitt Romney is lucky he hasn't been charged with animal abuse, because if I was him, I'd have been kicking my neighbor's dog and muttering something like "if I'd just waited four years..." every day for the last 18 months.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Drake

And then I remember who the audience is and just decide it isn't worth it. Not because it's political, but because it's like explaining magic or science or polling math to the illiterate.

Magnets.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Drake

I figure Mitt Romney is lucky he hasn't been charged with animal abuse, because if I was him, I'd have been kicking my neighbor's dog and muttering something like "if I'd just waited four years..." every day for the last 18 months.

She would have annihilated him. That'd have been like a sending a puppy up against a mountain lion (pick a metaphor mismatch if you don't like that one).

[Ben E Lou]

Speaking of Romney, rumors are afloat that the secondary goal of Team Trump is to get more EVs than Romney and then spin it that Trumpism > Establishment.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

Speaking of Romney, rumors are afloat that the secondary goal of Team Trump is to get more EVs than Romney and then spin it that Trumpism > Establishment.

Do they really need that spin? He beat the hell out of everyone the establishment threw at him and brought to heel almost everyone from the establishment that said they'd never vote for him. Trumpism is already greater than the establishment.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Do they really need that spin? He beat the hell out of everyone the establishment threw at him and brought to heel almost everyone from the establishment that said they'd never vote for him. Trumpism is already greater than the establishment.

When the heavy grumbling within the Republican electorate is going to be "anyone but this guy would have won," yes, the Trump wing is absolutely going to need some spin to remain viable.

[Ben E Lou]

Ok...this is just *perfect*

Trump official on tomorrow's turnout: “It’s like predicting your wife’s mood. You have no idea what you’re going to get until you get home”

— Joshua Green (@JoshuaGreen) November 7, 2016

Donald Trump campaign on Election Day turnout: "It's like predicting your wife's mood" | Mic

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Drake

I've had half a dozen iterations of the meme "It took 8 months to review 35k emails and 8 days to review 650k. Something does not jive." splash across my Facebook this morning.

Part of me wants to explain to how data modeling works. Part of me wants to explain that I routinely use databases to process and analyze 100k rows in 20 minutes. Part of me wants to explain that the software that allows me to do that efficiently took a month to develop and work the bugs out, but it's been 100% rock solid for ten years since.

And then I remember who the audience is and just decide it isn't worth it. Not because it's political, but because it's like explaining magic or science or polling math to the illiterate.

This was me yesterday as well. No individual is reading these line by line as if it was the year 1820.

[CrescentMoonie]

[larrymcg421]

The national polls indicate a pretty solid and safe lead for Clinton. If Trump pulls this out, I think it's likely he does so without winning the popular vote.

[ISiddiqui]

538 has her chances going up as well.

[larrymcg421]

[Brian Swartz]

I find it interesting that everybody's in Michigan today. I really can't imagine it being that close, unless Wayne County turnout is historically bad.

[albionmoonlight]

Lots of Jill Stein signs in my neighborhood--all of which have carefully been altered to let people know to write her in (she didn't make the ballot in NC). Things like this are why 3rd parties have such trouble. Someone or some group of someones took the time and effort to print out and put up those signs--including the addendum about writing her in. That is such a waste of effort. Why not have spent it earlier, getting her on the ballot. Or spend it elsewhere, where she is on the ballot. If you are trying to grow the Green Party into something that folks will take seriously, you've got to get out of the low single digits. And wasting enthusiasm on write-in campaigns is not the way to do it.

Also, speaking of signs, we went to an apple orchid this weekend. As we went from the liberal Triangle into rural North Carolina, we went from a land of very few signs to a land of a few more Trump signs. To a significant amount of homemade "Hillary For Prison" signs by the time we got there. It was exactly what I would have expected, which was a bit shocking in itself.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I find it interesting that everybody's in Michigan today. I really can't imagine it being that close, unless Wayne County turnout is historically bad.

I saw a write-up on that. In 2008, McCain pulled out of Michigan (hit super hard by recession). In 2012, the 47% comment really hurt Romney there. So there's a theory that Michigan is closer to 50/50 than people think and that the last two elections masked that. The campaigns' internal polling must show something similar.

[Brian Swartz]

Also, #1 piece of information I'm going to be looking for in the presidential race on election day: data on the undecideds, which was a significant number, several percent even in the most recent CBS poll. If they break significantly for Trump and urban turnout consistently as bad as it's been reported to be in some places, that's really his only reasonable chance IMO.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I find it interesting that everybody's in Michigan today. I really can't imagine it being that close, unless Wayne County turnout is historically bad.

Well, Trump has likely concluded he can't win Nevada based on the early vote, which means he needs to take one of those midwest states. Hillary's is probably just a defensive move. She's in the lead so why not go there to just blunt whatever gains his visit might make and energize the Wayne County base. She got burned in MI during the primary and doesn't want it to happen again.

[Thomkal]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Also, speaking of signs, we went to an apple orchid this weekend. As we went from the liberal Triangle into rural North Carolina, we went from a land of very few signs to a land of a few more Trump signs. To a significant amount of homemade "Hillary For Prison" signs by the time we got there. It was exactly what I would have expected, which was a bit shocking in itself.

The day before the election here in Myrtle Beach area, and still have not seen a single Hillary sign or downballot candidate.

[ISiddiqui]

Re: Michigan, wasn't there discussion that it's supposed to rain in Detroit tomorrow? So possible Clinton is there to urge voters to go out to the polls even if its storming.

[Subby]

LATimes, whose poll w/ USC Dornsife has consistently shown good numbers for Trump, now sees Clinton winning 352 EVs! https://t.co/voe2n3y9Ps

— Jim Roberts (@nycjim) November 7, 2016

[Atocep]

I've seen quite a few Trump ads on TV over the past few days. Really odd decision as far spending goes considering he has a slightly better than a 0% chance of winning the state.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

Re: Michigan, wasn't there discussion that it's supposed to rain in Detroit tomorrow? So possible Clinton is there to urge voters to go out to the polls even if its storming.

That would make sense, except that unless their plans have changed, both campaigns are spending the majority of their day in Grand Rapids ... an hour from where I live and I lived there for years. It just feels weird. To albion's point, we haven't voted for the Republican since '88(Bush Sr.).

[CrimsonFox]

Originally Posted by CrescentMoonie

why would Hawaiians move to Canada? That makes no sense

[bhlloy]

Originally Posted by Subby

LATimes, whose poll w/ USC Dornsife has consistently shown good numbers for Trump, now sees Clinton winning 352 EVs! https://t.co/voe2n3y9Ps

— Jim Roberts (@nycjim) November 7, 2016

Is there any reason not to think this isn't a completely transparent way to hedge their bets? Even the most optimistic Clinton supporter can't think the polls are that close in OH

[CrimsonFox]

One thing about Ohio early voting for Cincinnati. It was in ONE place downtown. No where to park except street parking and 6 dollar lots. Line was long on Friday. Not astronomically but around the corner and i didn't want to risk a ticket. Over the weekend the line stretched to an eleven minute walk. That was the ONLY place to early vote for hamilton county. So I opted to wait til tomorrow when i can stroll into the burb polling place and vote. At least my vote will cancel out Lathum's so that's a thing

[molson]

What are your favorite networks/websites to follow this stuff tomorrow night? Do you have a system?

Edit: I'm looking for something with entertainment value. I remember one site I stumbled upon Super Tuesday that had visualizations of the candidates floating higher in balloons if they were doing well, or something. It amused me.

[Brian Swartz]

I'll check in every so often with MSNBC and 538. At times I've worked election night, but this year I'll be out of work by mid-afternoon and then voting, so I should be home some hours before any of the polls close.

Edit: I posted before your edit. Can't really answer your kind of question as I don't have TV.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by molson

What are your favorite networks/websites to follow this stuff tomorrow night? Do you have a system?

Edit: I'm looking for something with entertainment value. I remember one site I stumbled upon Super Tuesday that had visualizations of the candidates floating higher in balloons if they were doing well, or something. It amused me.

Was it NBC that used to paint a map superimposed on an ice rink? I always got a kick out of that.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I find it interesting that everybody's in Michigan today. I really can't imagine it being that close, unless Wayne County turnout is historically bad.

Clinton's probably winning Michigan by a few points... but if it's close Michigan is one of the potential fulcrums. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever for either side to campaign in states that look more like toss up's but wont matter if the national polls are off by a couple of points in Trump's favor. That's why the HRC ad buys & time spent in Arizona, Georgia & Texas look so questionable & greedy.

You also have multiple events going on - I'm up in NH where Obama's speaking later, but he's currently in Michigan & he'll be heading to Pennsylvania after stopping by here. (That seems like a lot of campaigning for a sitting President, but I suppose Bush in 2008 wasn't nearly as popular. I don't think Clinton was in 2000 either, though I don't recall 100% when people started liking him again.)

Originally Posted by Thomkal

I don't think Christie would have either. Cruz certainly not (though he likely would have won the evangelical vote).Not Carson either. The others, even Jeb Bush would have run a "traditional" campaign and not have a new scandal every minute or say the racist/sexist/etc comments Trump used, and would have had a better chance against Clinton.

I think both Kasich/Rubio would've had a better chance, but the idea they'd be easily beating Hillary is laughable because I also think the media narrative would've flipped more & Kasich especially was treated with kid gloves once he was the viable one left vs Trump & Cruz. He did a great job sounding like a reasonable adult, but his actual record as Governor has some VERY conservative actions, and remember his "Women are even leaving their kitchens to vote for me!" comment? He definitely would've been painted as a bigot. If Rubio were the candidate it'd be all about his lack of experience & possibly his wife's shady family/questionable finances.

[molson]

I also remember liking the Washington Post's format for quick raw results, but then it was nice to pull a few bullet-points observations from other places. (with the TV in the background) 538 muddies the waters for me at that point, because they're still in super-prediction mode, and at that point, I just want to read about what we know and what that means, not what's going to happen in 2 hours.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Edit: I posted before your edit. Can't really answer your kind of question as I don't have TV.

Oh I'll be using all mediums, I'll be on the sofa in front of the TV with a tablet, with the dog staring at me in judgment for not walking him yet.

[Ben E Lou]

Originally Posted by molson

What are your favorite networks/websites to follow this stuff tomorrow night? Do you have a system?

This is the view from my chair in my home office.



I'll do something like this:

TV: Probably back and forth between CNN and FOX
LEFT MONITOR: FB/Full Twitter Feed
CENTER MONITOR: Email/FOFC/DIY Election Map
RIGHT MONITOR: Created a List to follow the "breaking news" Twitter feeds from CNN/FOX/AP/CBS/ABC/MSNBC. That usually gives me the state-by-state "we project Georgia for Trump" results faster than on TV.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

It's hard to imagine what the campaign would look like with a different GOP candidate because the Russian/Wikileaks hacks wouldn't have happened.

So you're certain both that Putin engineered the interference in our election, and that he would not have done so if Trump wasn't running? Manafort does have ties to shady Putin allies, but there is an alleged pattern of Russian interference across Europe and he doesn't seem to be a fan of HRC's foreign policy stances.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by Ben E Lou

This is the view from my chair in my home office.



I'll do something like this:

TV: Probably back and forth between CNN and FOX
LEFT MONITOR: FB/Full Twitter Feed
CENTER MONITOR: Email/FOFC/DIY Election Map
RIGHT MONITOR: Created a List to follow the "breaking news" Twitter feeds from CNN/FOX/AP/CBS/ABC/MSNBC. That usually gives me the state-by-state "we project Georgia for Trump" results faster than on TV.

Do you also have a tablet on your lap and 2 cell phones to text different groups of people?

[Ben E Lou]

Heh. Nah, just one laptop and one TV...but two external monitors on that laptop.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

So you're certain both that Putin engineered the interference in our election, and that he would not have done so if Trump wasn't running? Manafort does have ties to shady Putin allies, but there is an alleged pattern of Russian interference across Europe and he doesn't seem to be a fan of HRC's foreign policy stances.

I'm certain because both government and private security firms are certain.

Maybe Putin would have still done what he has done, but a candidate like Buch or Kasich would have never been so uncritically supportive of Putin. My guess is any other GOP candidate would have been strongly anti-Russia as was true of Romney and McCain.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I've seen quite a few Trump ads on TV over the past few days. Really odd decision as far spending goes considering he has a slightly better than a 0% chance of winning the state.

Trump and his PACs have run quite a few ads on NYC local tv for the past month.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

She got burned in MI during the primary and doesn't want it to happen again.

538 had Clinton as 99% likely to win the Michigan primary. Trump has to beat the polls somewhere, Michigan seems as good a place as any.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by BishopMVP

Clinton's probably winning Michigan by a few points... but if it's close Michigan is one of the potential fulcrums. Doesn't make any sense whatsoever for either side to campaign in states that look more like toss up's but wont matter if the national polls are off by a couple of points in Trump's favor. That's why the HRC ad buys & time spent in Arizona, Georgia & Texas look so questionable & greedy.

You also have multiple events going on - I'm up in NH where Obama's speaking later, but he's currently in Michigan & he'll be heading to Pennsylvania after stopping by here. (That seems like a lot of campaigning for a sitting President, but I suppose Bush in 2008 wasn't nearly as popular. I don't think Clinton was in 2000 either, though I don't recall 100% when people started liking him again.)

Clinton was very popular at this point. He had a 57% approval rating in late October 2000. Gore decided not to use him because he was trying to distance himself from Clinton (that's partly why he picked Lieberman as well). Clinton could have (and should have) been used as much as Obama is being used now. McCain was correct not to use Bush at all. Bush did do heavy campaigning in the 2002 midterms when he was extremely popular.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'm certain because both government and private security firms are certain.

Maybe Putin would have still done what he has done, but a candidate like Buch or Kasich would have never been so uncritically supportive of Putin. My guess is any other GOP candidate would have been strongly anti-Russia as was true of Romney and McCain.

I'm with you that Putin's probably behind it, but I doubt that a different R candidate would have affected that or that there was any coordination or Trump-specific plan. Trump's a useful idiot that has fanned the flames, but the campaigns to sow disinformation & undermine trust in western/NATO authority have been going on for a few years. Assange also has a very specific axe to grind with Hillary (& the Obama state department.)

[CrescentMoonie]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

why would Hawaiians move to Canada? That makes no sense

There's a lot who move to the Pacific Northwest, Canada, and Alaska.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by CrimsonFox

At least my vote will cancel out Lathum's so that's a thing

Naw man, he packed up and moved to Oregon around the same time he dropped away from FOFC. I didn't know you were in Cincy. So I guess your vote will matter after all! In Kentucky, my vote isn't work dick, but I still voted.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Atocep

I've seen quite a few Trump ads on TV over the past few days. Really odd decision as far spending goes considering he has a slightly better than a 0% chance of winning the state.

Hey, the way you win Washington is one elector at a time, right? Skip the voters entirely. Tremendous!