2016 US Presidential Elections | Trump Wins

Status
Not open for further replies.
David Plouffe had a quite interesting interview on MTP the other day. Basically he said that polling is very volatile and flawed, so the Dem campaign no longer prioritise their own polling, but work on a data model of composition of the electorate, and direct their energy towards turning out subsets favourable to them. So despite the constant noise, Clinton is inching closer by the day to wrapping it up, as long as their ground game progresses.

This bullish stance is also mirrored by Sam Wang. His PEC still assign a 90% chance for Clinton. The NYT Upshot forecast and 538 both drop about 10% last fortnight. In Silver's case, no doubt also fueled a bit by his failure in the primaries.
 
Cheesy said:
Sadly a lot of people have struggled economically in recent times, and they're just sick of current rules and establishment types. Hard to blame them, although I do think it's worrying they turn to someone as deplorable as Trump.
Click to expand...
They should be sick of who gets us into these messes not those getting us out. The economy turned south during Bush's tenure and we are now heading north again, yet people are blaming Obama. I don't get it.
 
Ivor Ballokov said:
Yeah that's true I suppose, but it pales in comparison to Trump's statements (in the last week he said he'd take Iraqi oil) and what he says he will do if elected. I suppose what I'm trying to say is that with how extreme Trump's rhetoric is I find it crazy that people could be undecided or swayed.
Click to expand...


People are unhappy with the status-quo. Clinton´s message is: "Everything is fine, stop moaning and move on." She repeats the same political talking points that failed for over 20 years. Trump says: "I´ll burn the whole system down (and build something that works for you)." It is fairly easy to see why so many people, who feel disenfranchised, are going to vote for him.
Just go back 8 years and listen to Obama. He promised change, but turned out to be “just another politician”. The same goes for most of the GOP legislators. Career politicians, who promise change have zero credibility nowadays (that goes even for radicals like Ted Cruz).

The same is happening all over Europe as well. It manifests itself differently in each county depending on the historical and cultural background. In multi-party systems new parties (Spain, Italy) or extremist parties (e.g. France, Greece, Germany) capitalize, while in two party systems this isn´t really possible. In GB the consequences was Brexit. In the USA one party got taken over by a “genuine outsider” and additionally the 3rd/4th parties will end up with a historic (but meaningless) result. Trump is unintentionally a mocking persiflage of American mainstream pop-culture. Seeing him spouting his xenophobic, small minded nationalism, I always have to think about a horde of drunk loudmouths, who below the national anthem at a football match, while military jets paint the sky red and white. Trump fits perfectly. The troubling thing about this is, that even if Trump loses (and I genuinely hope he does), that won´t got away. We´ll see the same in 4 years again.
Serious politicians need to find better answer to the current problems.
 
Ole's_toe_poke said:
Yes. But as I said, is just being 'not Trump' enough to turn enough people out.

She has to be more than that.
Click to expand...

I agree that her pitch isn't really on point. Frankly, I think she wasted a lot of time framing him as unstable and courting Republicans. No one who would entertain voting for the orange disgrace after all he's said and done care one bit about his temperament, it also alienate the Sandersnistas, and I'd imagine a fair chunk of strongly partisan Dems as well (counterintuitive, yes).

With all that said, Drumpf isn't gaining. He's yet to break the hard ceiling of 45% nationally. It's Clinton losing ground, so it's always easier courting back people who would never vote for him than if they made the switch. Not pleased with how it's going on, but I won't enter full on panic mode until he breaks his ceiling regularly. Suffolk stopped polling NC, FL and VA in Oct 2012 because they thought Mittens was sure to win.
 
You can take Hillary out of the Republicans , but you can't take the Republican out of Hillary. The DNC warned her not to try and seduce Republicans ,but she did it anyway. She reminds of Blair
 
The debates are going to do nothing but hurt Trump. He can't possibly look good when subject to scrutiny like that. The polls are just being weird because nothing is happening right now and there's all this Hillary illness Americano-style bollocks dominating the news.
 
Grinner said:
The debates are going to do nothing but hurt Trump. He can't possibly look good when subject to scrutiny like that. The polls are just being weird because nothing is happening right now and there's all this Hillary illness Americano-style bollocks dominating the news.
Click to expand...

That is provided the moderators do their job properly. Chris Wallace already said he won't fact-check the candidates.
 
Grinner said:
The debates are going to do nothing but hurt Trump. He can't possibly look good when subject to scrutiny like that. The polls are just being weird because nothing is happening right now and there's all this Hillary illness Americano-style bollocks dominating the news.
Click to expand...
The debates in the primaries certainly didn't hurt him.
 
Remember, when Rubio´s campaign got effectively ended by repeating talking points? I share your sentiment, that Trump is not a good a debates or speeches, so it is certainly possible that he ends up looking silly. At the same time Hillary is pretty bad at debates/speeches as well. In the end sounding like a politician, who just memorized its talking points might be worse than a clueless Trump, who just talks as he fits.

Hillary has to try to sound like a human being, while Trump has to try to sound more like a politician. Both will struggle with their task.
 
LuisNaniencia said:
Would any of the mad shit he harps on about actually happen?

For example, day one "build the wall!" Advisors: "No actually that's completely morally and economically unviable plus we would need thousands of guards to patrol said wall and Mexico absolutely will not pay for it, Mr President."

Could he actually ruin everything or are the systems in place to prevent it?
Click to expand...

You realize that makes no sense.

America has guards patrolling its borders now. The idea that building an effective barrier which prevents people simply walking into the US across a shallow stream would require even more guards is bizarre.

I don't think Trump will demand a big cheque from the Mexican government marked "For your wall!" He's talking about a change in the way the US does business with Mexico financing the project. I'm sure he'll be able to point to some 'saving' and say, "This is how I paid for the wall."

Cost depends on the nature of the barrier. Critics produce inflated cost estimates on the assumption that an 'Iron Curtain' type obstacle is intended, with guard towers every hundred yards etc. If Trump wins and he builds his wall, I doubt it will be quite so ambitious. All that's needed is a modest obstacle to discourage casual mass entry. Americans have enough common sense to accept the occasional determined illegal: what they don't want is millions of people strolling into their country contrary to its laws with no real attempt made by their government to prevent them.
 
Last edited:
Justice Kagan refused to hear a Dem lawsuit on Ohio early voting; 1 week less now.
 
Mrs Smoker said:


Looks like he's satisfied with the paper he read.
Click to expand...


To be fair, apart from being a bit on the heavy side - Trump does look pretty healthy and spry for a 70 year old man.

Still too old to run for President though!
 
Will Absolute said:
You realize that makes no sense.

America has guards patrolling its borders now. The idea that building an effective barrier which prevents people simply walking into the US across a shallow stream would require even more guards is bizarre.

I don't think Trump will demand a big cheque from the Mexican government marked "For your wall!" He's talking about a change in the way the US does business with Mexico financing the project. I'm sure he'll be able to point to some 'saving' and say, "This is how I paid for the wall."

Cost depends on the nature of the barrier. Critics produce inflated cost estimates on the assumption that an 'Iron Curtain' type obstacle is intended, with guard towers every hundred yards etc. If Trump wins and he builds his wall, I doubt it will be quite so ambitious. All that's needed is a modest obstacle to discourage casual mass entry. Americans have enough common sense to accept the occasional determined illegal: what they don't want is millions of people strolling into their country contrary to its laws with no real attempt made by their government to prevent them.
Click to expand...


You mean like what already exists? Trump says his will be over 30 feet high.
 
SirAF said:
To be fair, apart from being a bit on the heavy side - Trump does look pretty healthy and spry for a 70 year old man.

Still too old to run for President though!
Click to expand...


I don't see why ill-health should disqualify you. Cheney ran things with a dead heart.
 
This is interesting. Bernie supporters moving more to the Trump side.

CsZxIuMW8AEHLev.jpg


CsZnk0QXYAA2aVQ.jpg
 
Grinner said:
You mean like what already exists? Trump says his will be over 30 feet high.
Click to expand...

No, I mean something which works.

Trump says a lot of things - what he said yesterday is not necessarily what he'll say tomorrow. But if he is elected, he'll build something - the wall is a fundamental plank of his campaign. And one that, unlike some of his other commitments, is easy to honour.

All that's needed is an obstacle which is sufficiently difficult to get past that only the most determined will make the attempt. If some small proportion of those who do try succeed, it doesn't matter. It's the practical outcome measured in numbers of illegals per year that affects Americans, not the principle of completely sealing US borders.
 
Will Absolute said:
No, I mean something which works.

Trump says a lot of things - what he said yesterday is not necessarily what he'll say tomorrow. But if he is elected, he'll build something - the wall is a fundamental plank of his campaign. And one that, unlike some of his other commitments, is easy to honour.

All that's needed is an obstacle which is sufficiently difficult to get past that only the most determined will make the attempt. If some small proportion of those who do try succeed, it doesn't matter. It's the practical outcome measured in numbers of illegals per year that affects Americans, not the principle of completely sealing US borders.
Click to expand...

Nothing works in a country this size. Besides, if they kept all Latino immigrants out, who would poor white folk blame for all that ails them?
 
PedroMendez said:
The Mediterranean Sea is not enough to keep people out, but Trump will manage to close the boarder to Mexico by building a magical wall. Sure :lol:
Click to expand...

All that's needed to cross the Med is a boat. People have been doing it since the dawn of history.

No magic is required to implement a land border. The old Soviet Union employed none when they divided Europe into two opposing blocs for nearly half a century. Families, lovers, friends and neighbours were separated in Germany. They didn't reunite until the wall came down.
 
Will Absolute said:
All that's needed to cross the Med is a boat. People have been doing it since the dawn of history.

No magic is required to implement a land border. The old Soviet Union employed none when they divided Europe into two opposing blocs for nearly half a century. Families, lovers, friends and neighbours were separated in Germany. They didn't reunite until the wall came down.
Click to expand...

Ever heard of things called tunnels?
 
Drifter said:
Trumps bold economic plan sounds totally unachievable.
Click to expand...

Just like all his plans. They're based on the fantasy of a man who believes everyone, both domestically and abroad, will just bend to his will and do whatever he tells them.
 
Will Absolute said:
All that's needed to cross the Med is a boat. People have been doing it since the dawn of history.

No magic is required to implement a land border. The old Soviet Union employed none when they divided Europe into two opposing blocs for nearly half a century. Families, lovers, friends and neighbours were separated in Germany. They didn't reunite until the wall came down.
Click to expand...
The Soviets also shot wall jumpers on site, I wonder if trump will have the same strategy.
 
adexkola said:
True.

I recall the Berlin Wall and fortified border between East and West Germany being extremely effective. Like, successful crossings over 40 years barely exceeded 1000.
Click to expand...

over 20k people succeeded and even more were able to do it in Czechoslovakia or Hungary. But the comparison is pointless. The DDR was an authoritarian dictatorship and went to great length to stop people leaving.
The idea that you can do similar things along the mexican boarder is absurd. Sure, you might be able to tighten it up, but you´ll never be able to really close it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.