2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
Red Dreams said:
Bernie does spell out in some detail how he is paying for the expenses he proposes.
Click to expand...

Indeed. And he has said, right from the start, that this cannot work by just getting him into office. It requires a grassroots interest to persist and hold other tiers of government accountable through election participation.
 
Ubik said:
Funny thing with that is that one great real example of her flip-flopping for short term popularity is the TPP deal, which she supported for a long time before coming out against it recently. But that list has her supporting it purely to make her look bad to fellow Berners, and I can say with confidence it's a deliberate misrepresentation because the sources on the original reddit post both link to a story talking about the flip-flop. Heh!
Click to expand...

What do you think about universal healthcare and college education?
 
MarceloFalcon said:
Sounds great. Would you rather live then?

Technology happened, productivity in certain activities skyrocketed. The rest of the world happened too, it was always unlikely the US would keep the GDP per capita advantage it had in the 50s and 60s, because both institutions and technology are replicable.

So now there are no more "good jobs" making couches, shoes, t-shirts, lightbulbs, basic metalwork, and all sorts of basic stuff that a basic educated worker from Latin America, Africa or Asia can just as easily do. And trying there to be would just push the economy into what has always happened to non-open economies that stimulate demand: inflation and productivity stagnation, which means wages stop growing in real terms. It happened in the US in the 70s, happened in Brazil and Mexico in the 80s.
Click to expand...

Actually I did live back then and it was brilliant. Less techie and wall street twats and their culture was a massive cultural plus, imo. So back to what we were discussing . . . how does Bernie come off like a communist appartchnik from the 70s?
 
berbatrick said:
What do you think about universal healthcare and college education?
Click to expand...
Some form of universal healthcare has to happen eventually, though it's clear that time isn't now. Cost of US education (and loan repayments) has to fall, but you can't just make it free overnight either. Voting for Bernie as President will make neither of these happen.
 
ravi2 said:
Sorry that you feel it is babble but health care should be free and free tertiary education is a noble idea.
I believe Bernie has explained how he plans to pay for such services.

The GOP has outlined nothing to substance. The things they babble about are repealing the ACA, denying climate change and trying to ban abortion for the millionth time.
Click to expand...

Neither should be free since both cost money and are basically massive income redistribution schemes from private sector to government control. If people can afford to pay for their own insurance then they should do so rather than expect the nanny state to take care of them.
 
ravi2 said:
Sorry that you feel it is babble but health care should be free and free tertiary education is a noble idea.
I believe Bernie has explained how he plans to pay for such services.

The GOP has outlined nothing to substance. The things they babble about are repealing the ACA, denying climate change and trying to ban abortion for the millionth time.
Click to expand...


Health Care Is paid for. we all will pay for it through payroll deductions. The cost that will be eliminated is Health Insurance Premiuims which is legalised extortion.
 
Why don't people understand that health insurers provide no service and just skim money? I don't get the love for insurers.
 
Ubik said:
Some form of universal healthcare has to happen eventually, though it's clear that time isn't now. Cost of US education (and loan repayments) has to fall, but you can't just make it free overnight either. Voting for Bernie as President will make neither of these happen.
Click to expand...


Or ever.
 
Also, speaking of unrealistic promises, Clinton's entire campaign against Sanders revolves around her attack on his gun-control stand. She wants to introduce legislation much tougher than Obama's plans. Universal background checks (which he agrees with) and no immunity to manufacturers (which he has changed his position on).
How on earth is that a realistic agenda?
 
berbatrick said:
Also, speaking of unrealistic promises, Clinton's entire campaign against Sanders revolves around her attack on his gun-control stand. She wants to introduce legislation much tougher than Obama's plans. Universal background checks (which he agrees with) and no immunity to manufacturers (which he has changed his position on).
How on earth is that a realistic agenda?
Click to expand...

She cannot take the Democratic vote for granted. And the FBI investigation of her emails is not something to be brushed off.
 
berbatrick said:
Also, speaking of unrealistic promises, Clinton's entire campaign against Sanders revolves around her attack on his gun-control stand. She wants to introduce legislation much tougher than Obama's plans. Universal background checks (which he agrees with) and no immunity to manufacturers (which he has changed his position on).
How on earth is that a realistic agenda?
Click to expand...
Her campaign revolves about her being the best shot at winning the election in November. Gun control is just a wedge issue.
 
That's odd. At the start of this project, in his explanation of his methodology, Nate Silver said this:

Also, note that as the election approaches in each state, the polls-only and polls-plus forecasts will tend to converge. The model is set up such that the weight given to endorsements is set to zero by Election Day in each state, while the weight given to national polls is reduced.
Click to expand...

The logic being that endorsements are important not merely (or even mostly) because voters care about them, they're important because they're predictors of elite behaviour towards the candidate - helping to drive him up or down the polls. Obviously the effect this can have gradually reduces to zero as time runs out. Likewise with national polls. The logic is that national polls as a contrarian indicator decouples name recognition from true popularity. Name recognition alone gradually loses its relevance as voters gain information.

But I see no evidence that he has actually done this in his forecasts, at least visually from the shape of the graphs. Polls-plus and polls-only seem as far apart as they ever did.
 
naturalized said:
That's odd. At the start of this project, in his explanation of his methodology, Nate Silver said this:



The logic being that endorsements are important not merely (or even mostly) because voters care about them, they're important because they're predictors of elite behaviour towards the candidate - helping to drive him up or down the polls. Obviously the effect this can have gradually reduces to zero as time runs out. Likewise with national polls. The logic is that national polls as a contrarian indicator decouples name recognition from true popularity. Name recognition alone gradually loses its relevance as voters gain information.

But I see no evidence that he has actually done this in his forecasts, at least visually from the shape of the graphs. Polls-plus and polls-only seem as far apart as they ever did.
Click to expand...
They've been narrowing, looking at the NH Dem polls-only and polls-plus make that fairly clear (Sanders has been ahead on polls-only since at least mid December, but only took the lead on polls-plus a couple of weeks back). I imagine as there's still a couple of days left until election day, the endorsements are still having a remainder of an effect on Iowa due to Clinton's enormous lead with them.
 
A few more insults of Cruz and another Canada reference or two in the final days and Trump should have Iowa locked up.
 
Red Dreams said:
Hillary comparing the emails coming up again to Bengazhi is desperate.

The FBI are the ones bringing this up, not the Republicans.
Click to expand...

Why?

The FBI has made clear that at this point, she's not under investigation, moreso the process at States. None of her 'top secret' emails thus far was marked classified at the time she sent or received them.

You can question her judgement on this matter, but seeing that her two predecessors, Powell and Condi also used private servers, all wiped them clean when they left, it seems more of a common practice out of convenience on her part rather than hiding something nefarious to me.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Why?

The FBI has made clear that at this point, she's not under investigation, moreso the process at States. None of her 'top secret' emails thus far was marked classified at the time she sent or received them.

You can question her judgement on this matter, but seeing that her two predecessors, Powell and Condi also used private servers, all wiped them clean when they left, it seems more of a common practice out of convenience on her part rather than hiding something nefarious to me.
Click to expand...

Its her question of judgement that is under question. Condi and Powell were not running for President.
And the Benghazi comparison reeks of desperation. As long as this is being looked into by the FBI, the Republicans will use it against her and it will affect her electiblity.
 
Red Dreams said:
Its her question of judgement that is under question. Condi and Powell were not running for President.
And the Benghazi comparison reeks of desperation. As long as this is being looked into by the FBI, the Republicans will use it against her and it will affect her electiblity.
Click to expand...

I think it's a fair comparison. They've been doing that witch hunt for years without any concrete evidence of negligence or wrongdoing, when never questioned what W and his crews did in the lead up to Iraq. This email stuff now is the same, when both her predecessors used the same set up and even wiped clean all of that when they left, alongside the dear old Republican president who used a server set up by the RNC during his 8 years in office and 22 millions of email mysteriously get 'lost' when he left office.

The public handling of the situation has been lacking, but anyone with some interest in the matter can see it for what it is after doing some researches.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
I think it's a fair comparison. They've been doing that witch hunt for years without any concrete evidence of negligence or wrongdoing, when never questioned what W and his crews did in the lead up to Iraq. This email stuff now is the same, when both her predecessors used the same set up and even wiped clean all of that when they left, alongside the dear old Republican president who used a server set up by the RNC during his 8 years in office and 22 millions of email mysteriously get 'lost' when he left office.

The public handling of the situation has been lacking, but anyone with some interest in the matter can see it for what it is after doing some researches.
Click to expand...
Makes it sound rather amateurish that there was all these emails still on her server
Can't even hire a decent it guy or gal yet thinks she can run the country... Thats the attack angle I'd like to see
 
Nobby style said:
Actually I did live back then and it was brilliant. Less techie and wall street twats and their culture was a massive cultural plus, imo. So back to what we were discussing . . . how does Bernie come off like a communist appartchnik from the 70s?
Click to expand...

Just avoid Manhattan and Palo Alto then, that's where we mostly hang out.

Raoul mentioned the communist thing, I don't think that much of it, he's just a social-democrat. I think things would mostly be ok, but not too exciting.
 
Personally I do not see any difference to the difficulty the President will have working with congress, whether it is Hillary or Sanders. The moderate republicans will want to govern. Its the Tea Party who will make it difficult. It is key that the moderate members of the GOP..if there any left, try and work with the Dems to get bills passed.
 
"Gold standard" poll for Iowa that the numbers bods had been waiting for:



Essentially both MoE stuff, though largely backs up the previous picture of narrow leads for Clinton and Trump.
 
Ubik said:
They've been narrowing, looking at the NH Dem polls-only and polls-plus make that fairly clear (Sanders has been ahead on polls-only since at least mid December, but only took the lead on polls-plus a couple of weeks back). I imagine as there's still a couple of days left until election day, the endorsements are still having a remainder of an effect on Iowa due to Clinton's enormous lead with them.
Click to expand...

Ehhh... I think I see what you mean, but my untrained eye is possibly just not very good at interpreting this stuff. I'll take your word for it.

-------------------------

Some things that interested me about the Des Moines Register's findings:

1. Trumpeters have been talking shit for months now about how there will be a massive surge of new voters for their man, as Obama managed to do in 08. Nothing in the data supports this.

2. Part of Cruz's problem is that the Evangelical turnout seems to be mysteriously lower this time round. If that's an error and they turn out at historical levels, then Trump and Cruz are literally neck and neck, even more so than now.

3. Trump's biggest weaknesses are his pro-choice history and support of eminent domain, exactly as people like Ross Douthat have been pointing out for months now. Why establishment Republicans are such pussies about hitting him harder on these things (or at all) continues to mystify me.

4. The all-important trendline (Santorum rode a positive trend from 6th to 1st in the space of a week in 2012) is negative for Cruz. He might possibly do even worse than expected.

5. Cruz has much broader support than Trump. In a two-horse race, Cruz crushes Trump 53 to 35. His vote is being diluted. Not coincidentally, Cruz benefits most from last-minute changes of minds.

6. Iowa Republicans don't seem to care either that their Governor hates Cruz or that Trump skipped the last debate.

7. Democrats really, really love each other even if they disagree. Clinton's favourable-unfavourable is at 64 percentage points (81-17), Sanders is at 70 (82-12). O'Malley is at 33, but that's only because no one knows who he is (41% undecided). Compare Cruz at 37 (65-28), and Trump at a brisk 3 (50-47).

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...rump-reclaims-lead-latest-iowa-poll/79562322/
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...-edge-over-sanders-latest-iowa-poll/79537020/
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...er-look-democrats-iowa-poll-results/79571562/
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...0/closer-look-gop-iowa-poll-results/79566664/
 
ravi2 said:
I believe the GOP met on his inauguration night and vowed to do "whatever it took" to make him a one term president.
I think his ride to get there wasn't bad because people were so sick of Bush and the GOP in general.

2 terms of Bush had the US on the precipice of complete economic ruin.
Click to expand...
Clinton and affordable housing doesn't ring a bell?
 
Red Dreams said:
Personally I do not see any difference to the difficulty the President will have working with congress, whether it is Hillary or Sanders. The moderate republicans will want to govern. Its the Tea Party who will make it difficult. It is key that the moderate members of the GOP..if there any left, try and work with the Dems to get bills passed.
Click to expand...

'Moderate' Republicans will not cooperate with a Democratic President.

Anytime they do anything but obstruct, they get called out and a campaign starts against them.

John Boehner was a bonafide douchebag...yet, he wasn't good enough for the Tea Party retards.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.