2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
InfiniteBoredom said:
Numbers don't lie, she has 2.4 millions vote more than him. A supporter at the poll is more enthusiastic than a supporter at a rally. A supporter who canvass, fundraise, phone bank is more enthusiastic than one who spends his time posting dark memes on the net. Perception vs reality.



He just rattled off facts and stats on the spot to silence the dipshit. No one messes with the Big Dawg. As for harming appeal, they aren't doing that well with young blacks, so I doubt it matter.
Click to expand...


She loves that statement, she used a similar one in 2008. It overlooks the fact that she lost almost all the caucuses, where individual votes aren't counted.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
I called both Iowa and New Hampshire for Sanders 8 months ago. He's the hip progressive type that surface in the Democratic primaries from time to time, McGovern, Mondale, Kucinich, Jesse Jackson, Howard Dean. What do they have in common? Enthusiastic youth support, failure ultimately. The first two lost the general 1-49 in states, with respective electoral vote count of 13 and 17:
Click to expand...


I didn't want to take the effort to counter this argument of yours. That because liberals have failed before, they will forever fail again. Some things I was interested in were whether any one of them ever polled as well as he is polling nationally, and the kind of opponents they were up against (Trump is a little different from prime Reagan)
So, fortunately, someone did the work for me.

This was in February.

It’s too soon to conclude that Clinton’s historic unfavorability will spell defeat in November. Yet as Nate Silver noted with regard to Mitt Romney’s (less pronounced) unpopularity in April 2012, we should not dismiss these early numbers either. At the very least, they make it plain that Clinton faces an image deficit greater than any challenger in recent memory, including landslide losers like Walter Mondale, Michael Dukakis, Bob Dole, and John McCain.

Generally, however, the “electability” argument skips past Clinton and concentrates on Sanders. And here the case against Sanders divides into three general paths — one, guided by historical analogy; another, driven by pundit fears and fantasies; and a third, oriented around voter ideology and demographics. None are persuasive.

The most common way to dismiss Sanders is to lump him in with previous progressives battered by conservatives in general elections — usually Mondale in 1984 or George McGovern in 1972. “The early enthusiasm for Sanders reminds me of the McGovern and Mondale races, where two good men were only able to win one state each in their presidential campaigns,” former Louisiana senator John Breauxtold the New York Times in January.

The logic of this analogy turns on the idea that McGovern and Mondale both lost for the simple reason that they were too liberal for American voters. The first rebuttal is almost too obvious to spell out: the 2016 electorate looks nothing like the 1972 or 1984 electorate — quite literally, it is a different set of people.

Very old, and very lazy. As Daniel Denvir has written, the combination of factors that produced the McGovern disaster bears almost no resemblance to the political situation today. In 1972 the Democratic Party was in a state of flux. McGovern captured the nomination with about 25 percent of the primary vote; over 23 percent went to the Alabama white supremacist George Wallace. Major party leaders like AFL-CIO boss George Meany, meanwhile, refused to support McGovern in the general election against Nixon.

Today both major parties are far more ideologically unified and more polarized. Although the Democratic Party elite has so far shunned Sanders, he is almost as popular as Clinton among the party’s rank and file. If Sanders wins a clean majority of the primary vote, it’s hard to imagine any significant chunk of the Democratic coalition abandoning him in a general election against the Republicans.

But the historical analogies miss the mark for an even more fundamental reason. McGovern and Mondale did not lose because they were too liberal, but above all because they faced Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan, popular incumbents presiding over economic booms.

The 1972 and 1984 blowout losses conform closely to electoral models that measure vote totals based on underlying economic conditions, without taking any account of candidate identity or ideology. The Democrats were doomed no matter who they nominated.


Across the primary season, Sanders himself has rebuffed “electability” arguments by pointing to poll results. In hypothetical matchups against the three leading Republicans (Donald Trump, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio) he beats them all soundly, and polls better than Clinton in every case.

We may be skeptical about the predictive power of these findings, nine months before Election Day. But it’s wrong to call them “absolutely worthless,” as one political scientist told Vox last week.

In a comprehensive analysis of elections between 1952 and 2008, Robert Erikson and Christopher Wleizen found that matchup polls as early as April have generally produced results close to the outcome in November.

Even much earlier “trial heats” seem to be far from meaningless. As partisan polarization has increased over the last three decades, there’s some evidence that early polling has become more predictive than ever. In all five elections since 1996, February matchup polls yielded average results within two points of the final outcome.

Sanders is far from an obscure or unknown figure. Across sixteen national surveys since New Year’s Day, an average of 85 percent of Americans knew enough about Sanders to form an opinion of him.

This is not the profile of a candidate flying under the radar. John Kasich, who fits that description, elicited an opinion from just 53 percent of respondents in the eleven surveys that asked about him. More Americans have a decided view of Sanders than either Rubio (77 percent) or Cruz (81 percent).

That view is strongly positive. Sanders’s favorability ratio of 51 percent positive to 38 percent negative is the best of any candidate in the race, by far. His favorability with independent voters is also much higher than any of his rivals, including Clinton, Trump or Rubio.

There is simply no historical precedent for a major party nominee as popular and well-known as Sanders collapsing in a general election.

Some gleefully apocalyptic liberals have likened Sanders to Michael Dukakis, who held an early polling lead over George H. W. Bush before ultimately losing by a large margin in 1988. Yet the comparison falls apart before it begins.

A stiff technocrat, Dukakis won the Democratic primary not by packing arenas with passionate supporters, but chiefly by having more impulse control than Gary Hart and being whiter than Jesse Jackson. And his early polling strength was clearly a mirage, as contemporaries noted: only 52 percent of voters even had an opinion of him in May 1988. Dukakis was John Kasich, not Bernie Sanders.
Click to expand...
 
berbatrick said:
I didn't want to take the effort to counter this argument of yours. That because liberals have failed before, they will forever fail again. Some things I was interested in were whether any one of them ever polled as well as he is polling nationally, and the kind of opponents they were up against (Trump is a little different from prime Reagan)
So, fortunately, someone did the work for me.

This was in February.
Click to expand...

Following your argument, 1972 and 1984 electorate were different as well. We are not going to see eye to eye on this, so feel free to believe what you will. Luckily, we won't have to test out your theory in real life.
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
Following your argument, 1972 and 1984 electorate were different as well. We are not going to see eye to eye on this, so feel free to believe what you will. Luckily, we won't have to test out your theory in real life.
Click to expand...

And unfortunately the rest of the world will have to deal with a Clinton or Cruz foreign policy.

Edit: Surely the difference caused ot population by 16 years is less than 32? He later goes on in the article to explain why this is important (changing attitudes to socialism, concentrated in young voters, independents, and of course Dems).
A bigger point is that the economy is the best predictor of a GE. I've been saying that for 6+ months now. See the change in Obama's number before and after the crash. He could very well have lost narrowly to a Republican following 2 terms of the most unpopular president in modern times. It's possible Trump's historic numbers would keep him from the WH even in a tanking economy, but it's not a lock.
And he gives good reasons to contrast Bernie with McGovern, etc.
 
Last edited:
Raoul said:
That's the entire point of making a private speech - its private.
Click to expand...

But surely you can see why suddenly blocking out your voice when you speak to people who have given you money is a problem?
She has said repeatedly that money doesn't influence her. There are some articles coming out about specific decisions/votes (on fracking and an oil pipelines) that at least allow suspicion.
And keeping the public away will strengthen that perception.
 
Red Dreams said:
guns don't kill. people kill.

I'm against the NRA and more importantly the Congress that has not enacted common sense gun laws. Not gun manufacturers. If we had common sense laws, those children would not have been killed.
Click to expand...
A lot of guns we have are European made so will be an international lawsuit which the government will lose.
 
berbatrick said:
But surely you can see why suddenly blocking out your voice when you speak to people who have given you money is a problem?
She has said repeatedly that money doesn't influence her. There are some articles coming out about specific decisions/votes (on fracking and an oil pipelines) that at least allow suspicion.
And keeping the public away will strengthen that perception.
Click to expand...

It's actually not a problem at all given that it's a private event and the Clinton people know the media are snooping around outside with sensitive microphones.
 
Raoul said:
It's actually not a problem at all given that it's a private event and the Clinton people know the media are snooping around outside with sensitive microphones.
Click to expand...

A candidate should be having private events with their staff, planning strategy. Or (I don't know if this is a thing) with defence personnel if they should be briefed about something.
In an ideal world, she would be giving the same message to her donors that she would be giving her voters. In fact, that is what she claims. She is as tough on Wall Street when they invite her and donate to her as when she claims publicly to have the strongest plan to rein them in.

We all know that is never true. So it becomes an issue of planning. Literally having a noise machine to keep the riff-raff's ears away from your words is overkill and bad PR. The trick is to do your talking at a place where the riff-raff won't know it's happening.
 
berbatrick said:
A candidate should be having private events with their staff, planning strategy. Or (I don't know if this is a thing) with defence personnel if they should be briefed about something.
In an ideal world, she would be giving the same message to her donors that she would be giving her voters. In fact, that is what she claims. She is as tough on Wall Street when they invite her and donate to her as when she claims publicly to have the strongest plan to rein them in.

We all know that is never true. So it becomes an issue of planning. Literally having a noise machine to keep the riff-raff's ears away from your words is overkill and bad PR. The trick is to do your talking at a place where the riff-raff won't know it's happening.
Click to expand...

I agree that it's bad PR but the entire narrative about Hillary being bought by Wall Street is completely illegitimate anyways, so I'm not bothered by a few butthurt paparazzi who can't get their gotcha story about a Hillary fundraiser.
 
Raoul said:
I agree that it's bad PR but the entire narrative about Hillary being bought by Wall Street is completely illegitimate anyways, so I'm not bothered by a few butthurt paparazzi who can't get their gotcha story about a Hillary fundraiser.
Click to expand...

So the money is because they are feeling altruistic? And the speeches (http://iwilllookintoit.com/) she gave in exchange for a few hundred grand each, they were about tough regulation?
Modern political donations involve quid-pro-quo. I've said that Sanders, whether through money or votes is beholden to the agriculture lobby. And the unions. I see no reason not to hold Clinton up to the same standard (when her record on Wall St and oil is patchy at best).
I can weigh animal ag and workers rights vs Wall St, big oil, big pharma, foreign dictatorships (to her family foundation) and decide which is more objectionable.
 
berbatrick said:
And unfortunately the rest of the world will have to deal with a Clinton or Cruz foreign policy.

Edit: Surely the difference caused ot population by 16 years is less than 32? He later goes on in the article to explain why this is important (changing attitudes to socialism, concentrated in young voters, independents, and of course Dems).
A bigger point is that the economy is the best predictor of a GE. I've been saying that for 6+ months now. See the change in Obama's number before and after the crash. He could very well have lost narrowly to a Republican following 2 terms of the most unpopular president in modern times. It's possible Trump's historic numbers would keep him from the WH even in a tanking economy, but it's not a lock.
And he gives good reasons to contrast Bernie with McGovern, etc.
Click to expand...

Since you made the effort...

The biggest single issue that I don't see Sanders overcome in the G.E is his tax plan. No one has ever won the presidency on a tax-raising on all income levels platform. Sure, McGovern's loss can be chalked up to intraparty fighting, but Mondale 49 states defeat is the model we are talking about. Despite the changing social norms, Americans don't take kindly in paying more taxes and having more government oversight (get off my healthcare!!!). I think he can run a competitive campaign against Trump but the latter despite his demagoguery can still occupy a somewhat centrist position due to his extremely elusive positions, while Sanders doesn't have that luxury. Such scenario doesn't happen with Clinton because you just can't out-center her.

The second thing is the make up of the electorate. McCain was not an inspiring candidate, got mired with W's dump and had the media whack the shite out of him for picking Palin. He got 46% of the votes.
In this age of partisanship, I don't buy the argument that a candidate as extreme as Sanders can entice Republicans to vote for him, and while he does well among independents, it's worth noting that the GOP primary turn out have been consistently higher this cycle. Independents are themselves not all centrists, in fact most of them have a political leaning considered fringe to both Parties. So there's a more than good to fair chance he will lose the centrists, motivate the far right to turn out while only carry the far left himself. This argument is supported by his losses in all the big swing states so far (OH, FL, VA).

And finally, assuming that against all odds, he beat Clinton fair and square to the nomination, carry the general and take back the Senate, you still can't take back the House and State legislatures this year. He will get gridlocked to death and in 2 years the GOP will read it's head again. A President Rubio or Cruz in 2020 will pretty much mean that all states legislatures, majority of governorships and the House remain in the GOP's control for another 10 years. Is that a risk you are willing to take? Clinton will take her half loaves, but she'll at least have something tangible to run on. Political revolution doesn't sound as appealing the second time after 4 years of no achievement.
 
berbatrick said:
So the money is because they are feeling altruistic? And the speeches (http://iwilllookintoit.com/) she gave in exchange for a few hundred grand each, they were about tough regulation?
Modern political donations involve quid-pro-quo. I've said that Sanders, whether through money or votes is beholden to the agriculture lobby. And the unions. I see no reason not to hold Clinton up to the same standard (when her record on Wall St and oil is patchy at best).
I can weigh animal ag and workers rights vs Wall St, big oil, big pharma, foreign dictatorships (to her family foundation) and decide which is more objectionable.
Click to expand...

No, the money is because organizations (much like individuals) have a right to back candidates they feel support their interests. Its not rocket science really.
 
barros said:
Morality? You can add Kennedy and Clinton on your list.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure none of them vehemently espouse 'family values' the way your party does. I couldn't give a shit about how many asses they got as long as it's not illegal (bestiality, pedophile). It's the hypocrisy that rankled.

And if you know anything about history, president's sex life only became a thing in political discourse due to the GOP's attempt to bring down the Kennedys, with Reagan later on opening the door for the Christian Right to intrude upon public discourse. Marilyn Monroe went on stage to practically masturbate in front of Kennedy's family and no one gave a shite.
 
Sex scandals are major bullshit. People are flawed and sex is usually the main one because men are rarely getting enough...especially politicians. Somebody like Anthony Weiner was an exceptional politician but because he had a troubled marriage and had some fun with another consenting adult all of a sudden he can't be a politician anymore. Pretty much all of the great leaders through history had these sorts of secrets but they were usually ignored because it rarely impacted what they did day-to-day but the rise of the christian right has made sex a major issue now. The funny thing is that it's caught out just as many repubs as dems....most of the loudest voices calling for Bill clinton's impeachment over a BJ were having secret affairs themselves.
 
Grinner said:
Sex scandals are major bullshit. People are flawed and sex is usually the main one because men are rarely getting enough...especially politicians. Somebody like Anthony Weiner was an exceptional politician but because he had a troubled marriage and had some fun with another consenting adult all of a sudden he can't be a politician anymore. Pretty much all of the great leaders through history had these sorts of secrets but they were usually ignored because it rarely impacted what they did day-to-day but the rise of the christian right has made sex a major issue now. The funny thing is that it's caught out just as many repubs as dems....most of the loudest voices calling for Bill clinton's impeachment over a BJ were having secret affairs themselves.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree. Humans are susceptible to corruption and sexual deviance, irrespective of whether they are on the left or right.
 
Raoul said:
So....are you suggesting Republican politicians are linked with paedophilia or what ?
Click to expand...

Uh, Denny Hastert most definitely. Congressman Mark Foley, oh yes.

And then go read about Hastert and his leading the way to impeach Clinton, his reactions to the New Orleans disaster, how he has totally served himself to the riches of office.

And then maybe you can watch reruns of Mark Foley on Bill O´Reilly´s show of protecting the kids. And then read about O´Reilly beating the shit out of his wife in front of his daughter.

And then go delve into the Reagan/first papa Bush admin and the whole pedophile scandals that were uncovered (and covered up and silenced) by Republican Senator John Decamp. Bone up on your history and read about John Spence and Laurence King, who sand the national anthem at two Republican conventions.

Where there´s smoke, there´s fire.

Seriously, Denny Hastert, Mark Foley, Dick Cheney, Oliver North, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz (and his almost certain sins), Paul Ryan and how the first thing he did was he went running with the inside info of the crash to cash in and sell before the news came out . . . Iran Contra, Iraq war build up, 2008 economic crash . . . the out and out racist, obstructionist attack on Obama when this country was in its worst economic crisis of modern times, the anti science and climate hoax deniers . . . again I ask, do we really want these douchebags back in power in the US???


Anyway, point being, it was just that poor Denny Hastert was back in the news pleading for leniency. A reminder to us all in this election year.
 
Nobby style said:
Uh, Denny Hastert most definitely. Congressman Mark Foley, oh yes.

And then go read about Hastert and his leading the way to impeach Clinton, his reactions to the New Orleans disaster, how he has totally served himself to the riches of office.

And then maybe you can watch reruns of Mark Foley on Bill O´Reilly´s show of protecting the kids. And then read about O´Reilly beating the shit out of his wife in front of his daughter.

And then go delve into the Reagan/first papa Bush admin and the whole pedophile scandals that were uncovered (and covered up and silenced) by Republican Senator John Decamp. Bone up on your history and read about John Spence and Laurence King, who sand the national anthem at two Republican conventions.

Where there´s smoke, there´s fire.

Seriously, Denny Hastert, Mark Foley, Dick Cheney, Oliver North, Donald Trump, Ted Cruz (and his almost certain sins), Paul Ryan and how the first thing he did was he went running with the inside info of the crash to cash in and sell before the news came out . . . Iran Contra, Iraq war build up, 2008 economic crash . . . the out and out racist, obstructionist attack on Obama when this country was in its worst economic crisis of modern times, the anti science and climate hoax deniers . . . again I ask, do we really want these douchebags back in power in the US???


Anyway, point being, it was just that poor Denny Hastert was back in the news pleading for leniency. A reminder to us all in this election year.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you're point is here. Are you linking Republicans to sexual deviance ?
 
Grinner said:
Sex scandals are major bullshit. People are flawed and sex is usually the main one because men are rarely getting enough...especially politicians. Somebody like Anthony Weiner was an exceptional politician but because he had a troubled marriage and had some fun with another consenting adult all of a sudden he can't be a politician anymore. Pretty much all of the great leaders through history had these sorts of secrets but they were usually ignored because it rarely impacted what they did day-to-day but the rise of the christian right has made sex a major issue now. The funny thing is that it's caught out just as many repubs as dems....most of the loudest voices calling for Bill clinton's impeachment over a BJ were having secret affairs themselves.
Click to expand...

Funny . . . and totally revealing.

I tend to agree. Humans are susceptible to corruption and sexual deviance, irrespective of whether they are on the left or right.
Click to expand...

Whereas I agree, but the democrats are nowhere near the scary douchness of the "greed-is-good" Republicans.
 
Grinner said:
Sex scandals are major bullshit. People are flawed and sex is usually the main one because men are rarely getting enough...especially politicians. Somebody like Anthony Weiner was an exceptional politician but because he had a troubled marriage and had some fun with another consenting adult all of a sudden he can't be a politician anymore. Pretty much all of the great leaders through history had these sorts of secrets but they were usually ignored because it rarely impacted what they did day-to-day but the rise of the christian right has made sex a major issue now. The funny thing is that it's caught out just as many repubs as dems....most of the loudest voices calling for Bill clinton's impeachment over a BJ were having secret affairs themselves.
Click to expand...

When it involves consenting adults, I think the only time it is really an issue is when the person in power starts handing out favors or promotions to the person they are having the affair with or if they start using public funds to buy gifts and such, but that falls under corruption more than a sex scandal.

Obviously, a sex scandal could expose someone's hypocrisy as you pointed out, which would be another issue. IE, wanting to impeach Bill Clinton but at the same time be off banging one of their own interns or if you are very anti-gay rights while at the same time you are hanging out in airport men's rooms with a "wide stance."

I think the future is going to hold some very interesting tests of how voters react to things. Let's face it, it won't be too long before there will be some major candidate (male or female) who suddenly will find all those selfies they took of themselves when they were younger plastered all over reddit or 4chan. I know Wiener had his photos leaked as part of that "scandal" It will be interesting to see how the public reacts to that, given how many voters will have done the same thing. Did the pics of Cameron sexing up the pig head every actually get released or were they just talked about?
 
InfiniteBoredom said:
I'm pretty sure none of them vehemently espouse 'family values' the way your party does. I couldn't give a shit about how many asses they got as long as it's not illegal (bestiality, pedophile). It's the hypocrisy that rankled.

And if you know anything about history, president's sex life only became a thing in political discourse due to the GOP's attempt to bring down the Kennedys, with Reagan later on opening the door for the Christian Right to intrude upon public discourse. Marilyn Monroe went on stage to practically masturbate in front of Kennedy's family and no one gave a shite.
Click to expand...
I dont give a shit as well what they do, I didn't care when Clinton had a BJ in his office, that was his wife problem not the country's problem but bringing names from Rep's when we have so many Dem's doing the exactly same thing, does John Edwards ring a bell?
 
barros said:
I dont give a shit as well what they do, I didn't care when Clinton had a BJ in his office, that was his wife problem not the country's problem but bringing names from Rep's when we have so many Dem's doing the exactly same thing, does John Edwards ring a bell?
Click to expand...
m

Because Republicans happen to be such staunch defenders of 'traditional family values'?

I've never said Dems are paragons of virtue. To the contrary, I think politicians in general have more in common with psychopaths than the common man. However, Dems are nowhere near being hypocritical dicks the GOP are in this matter.
 
Raoul said:
His actions have nothing to do with him being a Republican though - they had everything to do with Hastest being a sexual predator.
Click to expand...

I would disagree with this. Everything about his outrageous moral hypocrisy, outrageous enrichment from office, and outrageous predatory nature on young boys reeks of a Republican. Be honest, if you read Denny Hastert´s story, your Republican radar would be spinning off the charts.

Just coincidence that two of the biggest douche candidates and are leading the Republican polls?
 
Nobby style said:
I would disagree with this. Everything about his outrageous moral hypocrisy, outrageous enrichment from office, and outrageous predatory nature on young boys reeks of a Republican. Be honest, if you read Denny Hastert´s story, your Republican radar would be spinning off the charts.

Just coincidence that two of the biggest douche candidates and are leading the Republican polls?
Click to expand...

So do the actions of Elliot Spitzer, Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton, James Traficant, Dan Rostenkowski et al reak of them being Democrats ?
 
Repubs are always calling themselves family values candidates and claiming to be morally superior so you can differentiate between the two.
 
Grinner said:
I don't think that's true. Repubs are better at it but plenty of dems are shady, greedy scamming cnuts.
Click to expand...

Show me a democratic Denny Hastert or Dick Cheney. It´s much more likely in their nature. The Republican party attracts the douchiest of Americans. White supremacists, the greediest cuntz, sneakiest slime and the biggest moral hypocrites ever. I´ve been banging on about this theory for years on here, and the fact that the two leading Republican candidates are Donald Trump and Ted Cruz . . . the prophet hath spoken
 
Grinner said:
Repubs are always calling themselves family values candidates and claiming to be morally superior so you can differentiate between the two.
Click to expand...

I can see the hypocrisy angle, but the idea that politicians of one party are more likely to be sexual predators is laughable.
 
Nobby style said:
Show me a democratic Denny Hastert or Dick Cheney. It´s much more likely in their nature. The Republican party attracts the douchiest of Americans. White supremacists, the greediest cuntz, sneakiest slime and the biggest moral hypocrites ever. I´ve been banging on about this theory for years on here, and the fact that the two leading Republican candidates are Donald Trump and Ted Cruz . . . the prophet hath spoken
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing with you but it also attracts decent people too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.