2016 Election -- Part II
Poll
 | 57 votes (47.89%) | ||
| | 33 votes (27.73%) | ||
| | 12 votes (10.08%) | ||
| | 10 votes (8.4%) | ||
| | 4 votes (3.36%) | ||
| | 3 votes (2.52%) |
119 members have voted
Quote: BozI would say whichever hotel paid her the most. Even a biased guy like you understands it's all about the money with her. Wait, let me guess, you think she cares about you, me or anyone else. Thanks for the laugh!
She flew in that morning, flew out immediately after the debate. Gave a press conference on the plane, at least a few questions worth, before they took off. Redeye back to the east coast.
Still guessing they based somewhere for the day, but don't know where.
Quote: ams288Prediction: On and after election night, we won't hear much from MaxPen anymore. He's in for a rough night.
MaxPen is a good guy. He'll be around after the election. Not to worry.
Quote: MaxPenHillary is killing herself.
Did you see the whole room go quiet at the dinner when she outed Obama as a Muslim?
I can't tell if you are just being disingenuous or you really don't understand how comedy works.
Obama has made jokes about himself being a secret Muslim for years. Hillary followed suit. There is no "outing" here. I can't believe I actually have to explain a joke like this.
Quote: RonCI think his "political career"--him running for office--effectively ended earlier in this election cycle, if not before. I don't think his decision to support Trump had anything to do with the end of it.
So is it okay now to attribute something happening to a person on Hillary's side as happening because someone "licked her pussy"? As in Tim Kaine got to be be the VP candidate by licking Hillary's pussy because otherwise he had no chance at a national office?
Probably not.
In Giuliani's case, his craven subservience and his willingness to blithely lie for his master make the metaphor quite appropriate. But then, you understood that. Moving right along...
Quote: beachbumbabsEnough of the graphic sexual phrases such as lick this or that, please. If you must, mask them iaw PG rule. Thanks.
Fair enough. Though we use disgusting phrases like "Donald Trump" all the time...
Quote: ams288I can't tell if you are just being disingenuous or you really don't understand how comedy works.
Obama has made jokes about himself being a secret Muslim for years. Hillary followed suit. There is no "outing" here. I can't believe I actually have to explain a joke like this.
Max finds reality boring. He understood that it was a joke. If he didn't, he'd have to be dumber than a box of rocks, and I don't think that he is.
Quote: onenickelmiracleIf Trump was elected, do you think he would raise up w2gs from $1200 higher, or is he clueless about this? Would casinos allow tickets printed for a few thousand without being afraid they were being robbed or continue hand pays above $1200? I'm under the assumption they consider hand pays a nuisance and a precaution against malfunction/being robbed, and they have overall returns lower to bring down labor costs of hand pays.
He wouldn't be able to change IRS rules. Like many of the things he says he'd do, that is beyond the power of a President.
But the ONLY reason that hand pays exist is to give the casino the opportunity to fill out and provide a W2-G, and they have no choice in that.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikIn Giuliani's case, his craven subservience and his willingness to blithely lie for his master make the metaphor quite appropriate. But then, you understood that. Moving right along...
You missed the whole point...who cares...why, though, did you need to copy the part we were both warned about?
Quote: RonCYou missed the whole point...who cares...why, though, did you need to copy the part we were both warned about?
Ron, you aren't nearly subtle enough to make points that I or anyone else would miss. Now please move along.
Quote: DTRobersI have to disagree with you Jln. "Donald Trump" is not a disgusting phrase. "Trump Presidency" - THAT is a disgusting phrase!
Yeah, I guess you're right. "Donald Trump devoured by rabid wolverines," for example, would be a delightful phrase.
Though I do expect that future generations will consider "Trump" to be a swear word, along the lines of "Go Trump yourself!" or "What a piece of Trump!" Maybe we'll have to type it on internet forums as "T***p."
Quote: JoeshlabotnikYeah, I guess you're right. "Donald Trump devoured by rabid wolverines," for example, would be a delightful phrase.
As someone who lives in the liberal Mecca of Ann Arbor, I can safely say if he ever steps foot in this town that sentence may become reality.
“If you vote for Hillary Clinton, I will give you a blowjob,” said Madonna.
Who says liberals aren’t serious about important political issues? Just in case you aren’t completely sold, Madonna givers her oral sex résumé.
“And I am good. I am good. I’m not a tool, I take my time, I have a lot of eye contact, and I do swallow,” she said.“If you vote for Hillary Clinton, I will give you a blowjob,” said Madonna.
http://downtrend.com/71superb/yuck-madonna-will-give-you-a-blowjob-if-you-vote-for-hillary?utm_source=fnot1&utm_medium=facebook
Quote: RonCMadonna wants to blow Trump away...
“If you vote for Hillary Clinton, I will give you a blowjob,” said Madonna.
Who says liberals aren’t serious about important political issues? Just in case you aren’t completely sold, Madonna givers her oral sex résumé.
“And I am good. I am good. I’m not a tool, I take my time, I have a lot of eye contact, and I do swallow,” she said.“If you vote for Hillary Clinton, I will give you a blowjob,” said Madonna.
http://downtrend.com/71superb/yuck-madonna-will-give-you-a-blowjob-if-you-vote-for-hillary?utm_source=fnot1&utm_medium=facebook
Eye contact in that context creeps me out big league
Quote: ams288Here's a random question, but this is a Vegas board after all: Does anyone know what hotel Hillary stayed at in Vegas before the debate?
I don't know. She may not have spent a night here. I can say that Bill Clinton preferred the Four Seasons (inside the Mandalay Bay) when he was president and Barack Obama liked one of the two hotels at Lake Las Vegas.
In fact, anyone in the future looking at the resulting counts without context might come to the wrong conclusions.
But that's assuming I've guessed right.
Quote: rxwineHappen to agree with an analysis I heard today. Even if Hillary wins big, it would likely be a mistake to consider it a mandate for the Democrats, except for perhaps a mandate against Trump.
In fact, anyone in the future looking at the resulting counts without context might come to the wrong conclusions.
But that's assuming I've guessed right.
It kind of depends on whether the current Republican wave (as in, their seizure of both the House and the Senate in 2014, their domination of state governorships, state legislatures, etc.) is a honest reflection of the will of the electorate or simply a triumph for the Republican strategy of gerrymandering and denying voting rights to those who are not likely to vote for them.
I had sensed a sea change away from Republicanism and toward common decency in the last few years, but the undeniable success of Trump's campaign (that he's going to lose notwithstanding) has kind of shaken my belief in that regard. I mean, if nasty, ignorant bigotry wasn't still a saleable brand in the US, would the Orange Orangutan get more than about 20 votes?
I read a news article today that reported that 1/3 of people who said they were voting for Clinton were going to do so because she wasn't Trump. Of course, that segment pales in comparison to the tens of millions of deplorables who are going to vote for Trump precisely because he IS Trump.
Dammit, the neighborhood dog Trumped on my lawn again.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikIt kind of depends on whether the current Republican wave (as in, their seizure of both the House and the Senate in 2014, their domination of state governorships, state legislatures, etc.) is a honest reflection of the will of the electorate or simply a triumph for the Republican strategy of gerrymandering and denying voting rights to those who are not likely to vote for them.
Gerrymandering has been done by both sides; sometimes, the parties even agree to it to protect certain characteristics of districts.
Asking for an ID is not "denying voting rights"; it is asking that the person voting be the person that is supposed to vote. It is a ridiculously low standard that Democrats harp on...
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI read a news article today that reported that 1/3 of people who said they were voting for Clinton were going to do so because she wasn't Trump. Of course, that segment pales in comparison to the tens of millions of deplorables who are going to vote for Trump precisely because he IS Trump.
...this whole election is a mess, but it isn't just Trump who makes it so. Trump would not even be in contention if the Democrats had a candidate that was trusted and likable. There are a lot of people out there who are voting "not Clinton" just as there are a lot voting "not Trump". If either party had a decent candidate, this race would have been over months ago.
The great thing is that neither one of them will make much difference to any one of us here. The bad thing is that neither one of them will make much of a difference to any one of us here. We'll get more of the same because neither of them play well with others.
Quote: dahoss2002I'm Republican and have no problem with Trump. Alot of Republicans and voters in general have forgotten how easily and soundly he defeated all the Republican frontrunners in the primary despite the GOP elite resistance. Does this even hint that the American people are trying to say something???? I firmly believe America will speak loudly on election day. Hillary is in for a shock.
Millions of Americans agree with you. Just not nearly enough millions to get Mr. Trump elected! What makes you think that all the polls taken recently are incorrect?
Quote: dahoss2002Alot of Republicans and voters in general have forgotten how easily and soundly he defeated all the Republican frontrunners in the primary despite the GOP elite resistance. Does this even hint that the American people are trying to say something????
Not really. Roughly:
Less than half of Americans vote in presidential elections
Half of those vote in primaries.
Half of those vote in the Republican primaries
Half of those voted for Trump
Quote: dahoss2002I'm Republican and have no problem with Trump. Alot of Republicans and voters in general have forgotten how easily and soundly he defeated all the Republican frontrunners in the primary despite the GOP elite resistance. Does this even hint that the American people are trying to say something????.
Of course the GOP elite fought Trump hard
They are the Republicans that want to nominate somebody that can win.
This as supposed to be a hard close race for Hillary
Instead the Trump base are so pissed at GOP elite trying to win, nominated a gift to Clinton
Instead of helping the GOP elite, they made sure Clinton is elected President..
Clinton wanted Trump to get the nomination and the hard right obliged giving her the Presiudency
No, it hints that the GOP primary voters are trying to say something. Those are far, far less than 30% of the electorate. Hillary appears to be headed toward an absolute majority of the popular vote (>50%), which is impressive in a race where at least one other candidate is likely to break the 5% mark (two in Utah). Trump is unlikely to get more than 42% of the overall vote.Quote: dahoss2002I'm Republican and have no problem with Trump. Alot of Republicans and voters in general have forgotten how easily and soundly he defeated all the Republican frontrunners in the primary despite the GOP elite resistance. Does this even hint that the American people are trying to say something????
Which is fine -- Trump can't even govern his own campaign, so it's unrealistic to expect him to govern the vast machinery of the federal government. One sign of a good leader is the ability to attract good people and keep them on the team. But as Hillary joked (truthfully) the other night, "I have now stood next to Donald Trump longer than any of his campaign managers." Trump wanted to win, but he was never actually up to doing the job of the president, and roughly 2/3 of the voters know that.
Quote: TomGNot really. Roughly:
Less than half of Americans vote in presidential elections
Half of those vote in primaries.
Half of those vote in the Republican primaries
Half of those voted for Trump
I have made this argument before, and agree with you completely, except I think your numbers are a bit off towards the end. Only 22% of voters nationwide are registered as Republican, not half, and most primaries are closed. Also, Trump did not get half of their votes, closer to 40%. So even fewer people put Trump in than your numbers indicate.
Too lazy today to get exact numbers but those are close.
Quote: dahoss2002I'm Republican and have no problem with Trump. Alot of Republicans and voters in general have forgotten how easily and soundly he defeated all the Republican frontrunners in the primary despite the GOP elite resistance. Does this even hint that the American people are trying to say something???? I firmly believe America will speak loudly on election day. Hillary is in for a shock.
No, but it certainly hints that a shockingly large percentage of the American people are bigots and morons.
Trump defeated all his primary challengers by gambling that being a nasty douchebag would actually resonate with Republican voters. I'm sure that even he didn't expect it to work. He was going to have some fun and then go back home. It appears that all he really did to prepare for the primaries was read some old Hitler speeches (true, actually). I think it worked for him precisely because of its novelty. Some people--the lower strata of humanity--are titillated and intrigued when someone "acts out" and violates all the rules of common decency--because they, secretly, want to do the same but are afraid of punishments. That's why movies about serial killers sell so many tickets.
I don't think the actual election will be shocking at all, in that its results will roughly reflect the dozens of polls that predict a resounding Clinton win. Regardless of what anyone may "firmly believe" (aka, "hope").
Quote: dahoss2002I know its against the popular media polls but I really think Trump is gonna win this. The small poll on this forum is probably closer to reality than the media polls.
You are in SUCH luck, then, that you're on a forum where you can back your hope, sorry, factual assertion that Trump is going to win win win! There are dozens of people here that will take your bets, including myself. I think you ought to be laying 4-1 or better, given your shining confidence, but I, in a spirit of generosity, WILL GIVE YOU EVEN MONEY. How can you turn that down?
Other forum members: No crowding, please, I saw him first.
Quote: terapinedOf course the GOP elite fought Trump hard
They are the Republicans that want to nominate somebody that can win.
This as supposed to be a hard close race for Hillary
Instead the Trump base are so pissed at GOP elite trying to win, nominated a gift to Clinton
Instead of helping the GOP elite, they made sure Clinton is elected President..
Clinton wanted Trump to get the nomination and the hard right obliged giving her the Presiudency
A lot of people are saying that the Republicans would be winning if they had some other candidate, the implication being that Clinton is such a horrible candidate that Trump is the only opponent she could beat, but who would be that opponent?
Chris Fatsie: Slowly sinking under the weight of a scandal, like an RV on an asphalt parking lot on a 110-degree day.
Ted Crud: Hated by everyone on earth, as well as by several trillion aliens who have intercepted his broadcasts.
Paul Lyin' Ryan: Would surely have demonstrated the same steadfast convictions as were reflected by his recent seven? eight? endorsements and unendorsements of Trump.
Jeb "Not Another One!" Bush: About as interesting as a wet Kleenex.
Also, we haven't gotten to hear much of anything about Hillary's plans and policies--we've been focused WAY too much on Trump's ranting. I believe that if Clinton was up against a marginally sane opponent, she'd have had a chance to get her message out, and a lot of people would have liked what they heard.
Quote: dahoss2002I know its against the popular media polls but I really think Trump is gonna win this. The small poll on this forum is probably closer to reality than the media polls.
I think the forum poll more closely represents the gender majority on this forum
In the general election if Women were not allowed to vote, Trump wins a close election
In the general election if Men were not allowed to vote, Clinton wins in a landslide
Its because on Woman that Trump is losing badly
It wasn't a bad play from a game strategy standpoint. It's only a minority of GOP primary voters who are, as you say, bigots and morons -- but they had only one candidate to support. The majority was split among the other 16 candidates, and even when that fell to 2 or 3, none of those candidates could pull together a sufficient segment of the GOP voters to surpass Trump's support. It's a classic case of divide and conquer. It worked great in the primary, but for exactly the same reason, it won't work in the general election because there's nothing to divide. In fact, it's pretty amazing how unified so many people are in their opposition to a Trump presidency, even though their actual political views differ. When did you ever think you'd see George Will and Paul Krugman on the same side of an issue? Or Glenn Beck and Elizabeth Warren?Quote: JoeshlabotnikNo, but it certainly hints that a shockingly large percentage of the American people are bigots and morons.
Trump defeated all his primary challengers by gambling that being a nasty douchebag would actually resonate with Republican voters. I'm sure that even he didn't expect it to work.
Quote: MathExtremistIt wasn't a bad play from a game strategy standpoint. It's only a minority of GOP primary voters who are, as you say, bigots and morons -- but they had only one candidate to support. The majority was split among the other 16 candidates, and even when that fell to 2 or 3, none of those candidates could pull together a sufficient segment of the GOP voters to surpass Trump's support. It's a classic case of divide and conquer. It worked great in the primary, but for exactly the same reason, it won't work in the general election because there's nothing to divide. In fact, it's pretty amazing how unified so many people are in their opposition to a Trump presidency, even though their actual political views differ. When did you ever think you'd see George Will and Paul Krugman on the same side of an issue? Or Glenn Beck and Elizabeth Warren?
I was shocked to see Will write an entire column barbecuing Trump. Of course, a few days later (maybe because of blowback from the faithful?) he attacked Clinton almost as viciously. I am more surprised about Glenn Beck. He has inhabited his own private planet for some time now. Maybe he thinks that Trump would put that planet in danger??
Anyway, I see your point, and I draw a historical parallel. Alexander the Great didn't rule a majority of the world's people--far from it. But he DID have a majority of the world's people who liked killing other people AND were good with swords and spears. He knocked down his opponents one at a time, and right up until when he died (in India, I think), none of his opponents saw him as a serious threat. He emailed Jeb Bush, the emperor of Persia, and told him that he considered all Persian lands and goods to be his. Bush just laughed at him, didn't recruit any allies, and lost. I believe that the Persian army outnumbered the Macedonian army 3-1. But the primaries were really brutal back then...
Speaking of divide and conquer, I'm kind of surprised that Trump abandoned his strategy of getting Bernie-heads to not vote for Clinton. It would have been an unrealistic goal to get them to vote for HIM, but a Bernie-head staying home would be a vote subtracted from Hillary's total. Much as Ralph Nader killed Al Gore in 2000, a few percentage points subtracted from Hillary could be enough to make her lose. But Bernie has been full-throated in his drive to convert his supporters to the Clinton cause, so maybe Trump--or his lackeys--figured that that approach wasn't going to work.
Quote: terapinedI think the forum poll more closely represents the gender majority on this forum
In the general election if Women were not allowed to vote, Trump wins a close election
In the general election if Men were not allowed to vote, Clinton wins in a landslide
Its because on Woman that Trump is losing badly
What we need is for women to run things for the next 5,000 years and compare the results to the previous 5,000 years. Couldn't be worse; might be much better.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikA lot of people are saying that the Republicans would be winning if they had some other candidate, the implication being that Clinton is such a horrible candidate that Trump is the only opponent she could beat, but who would be that opponent?
Chris Fatsie: Slowly sinking under the weight of a scandal, like an RV on an asphalt parking lot on a 110-degree day.
Ted Crud: Hated by everyone on earth, as well as by several trillion aliens who have intercepted his broadcasts.
Paul Lyin' Ryan: Would surely have demonstrated the same steadfast convictions as were reflected by his recent seven? eight? endorsements and unendorsements of Trump.
Jeb "Not Another One!" Bush: About as interesting as a wet Kleenex.
In fairness, the only aspect of this election saving Hillary from being the major-party nominee with the lowest favorable (greatest net unfavorable) rating in history is the fact that her opponent happens to be Donald Trump. As it stands, Hillary will take second place.
Furthermore, in news cycles that would have otherwise been dominated by E-Mails and Wikileaks releases, Trump has managed to bring most, if not all, of any negative media attention upon himself. You can also look at the video that was found with Trump commenting on grabbing women by the genitalia, even in jest, you're not going to have another Republican candidate say something like that on video because serious politics has been a career for them for the majority of their adult lives. They almost always behave and speak with an eye towards their political futures.
You did mention a few candidates who are, in my opinion, not likely to have had much of a chance against Hillary with exception to Jeb Bush. In a scenario in which Trump did not run for the nomination, then he did not do such a complete and thorough job of making a mockery of Jeb, and Jeb would have also enjoyed an outpouring of support from prominent Republicans who have been less unified (for obvious reasons) behind Trump.
Also, I don't know how well the, 'No more Bush,' position holds. Either way, the same three families will have held the White House for at least 32 consecutive years, now it is only highly probable that the same three families will hold the White House for at least 32 consecutive years, having Bush in there just makes it a certainty.
Marco Rubio is also young, good-looking and charismatic, so in addition to that, you would also have a process that is about policy positions. I don't know that Rubio is quite perceived to be the fundamentalist social conservative to quite the extent that someone like Ted Cruz is, so that may resonate well with potential supporters. You're going to essentially have the Republican base locked up against Clinton no matter who you are, so you don't necessarily need to alienate independents who may lean more socially-liberal than traditional Republicans.
Other than a number of not-so-intelligent decisions and arguments put forward by Fiorina, she might have had a reasonable chance. For one thing, you do have that, 'Political Outsider,' angle which has been, if not Trump's only leg to stand on, surely the leg that he is putting most of his weight upon. With Fiorina, you at least neutralize the, 'First female President,' angle with Clinton, but I don't know that as many individuals as one might otherwise believe are voting for Clinton explicitly for that reason, anyway.
Another thing that should be considered is how many people are really voting AGAINST Trump via what is a vote for Clinton, or to a lesser extent Johnson. With any of the potential (would have been) Republican candidates that I mentioned, I think you might at least have an election in which more people are voting FOR the candidate rather than against an opposite candidate. I also think that this would lower Hillary Clinton's popular vote, 'Ceiling,' because there would simply be more Conservatives and Conservative-Leaning Independents who I don't know would even consider her as opposed to the Republican candidate.
For my part, I select the candidate whose positions I most agree with, which is generally the Democrat (given that I consider myself a Socialist) but sometimes I will vote for a third-party candidate. I will also often write myself in if I don't really know anything about both of the candidates. Furthermore, which, 'Side,' I choose can also vary pretty significantly in the event it is some kind of local position for which I don't know that fundamental political Philosophy really matters that much. For instance, when it comes to something like County Sheriff, I just want to hear what the guy intends to do and how he plans to effectuate that...his stance on abortion (or any social issues other than race equality) is pretty much completely irrelevant to me.
Quote: Mission146In fairness, the only aspect of this election saving Hillary from being the major-party nominee with the lowest favorable (greatest net unfavorable) rating in history is the fact that her opponent happens to be Donald Trump. As it stands, Hillary will take second place.
I do wonder why that is, in that so many people seem to dislike Bill Clinton (that includes me), but why does that extend to dislike of his WIFE? They are manifestly quite different people. Maybe it's just good ol' sexism, where people can't believe that a woman could or would be independent from her spouse.
Marco Rubio might have had a shot against Hillary. However, his approach and identity carry fundamental contradictions. He (naturally) appeals, and expects to appeal, to Hispanic voters. But most Republican positions (kill the poor, drive out them furriners) are antithetical to most Hispanics. Plus, Rubio would face anti-Hispanic sentiment from within his own party, which, let's face it, has had for decades as its sole goal to keep rich white men in power.
But there's another aspect of a non-Trump opposing candidate to Hillary. Trump has galvanized the deplorables. He got them off their couches and out of their trailers to vote for him in the primaries. He got them to drive their pickup trucks to his rallies. Would they be doing the same for Bush, Rubio, etc. on Election Day? Joe Sixpack will vote for Trump because doing so gives him a chance to celebrate the hatred in his heart and the stupidity in his brain. But would Joe Sixpack risk missing Celebrity Wrestling Smackdown on TV just to stand in line to vote for Bush or Rubio? I doubt it.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI do wonder why that is, in that so many people seem to dislike Bill Clinton (that includes me), but why does that extend to dislike of his WIFE? They are manifestly quite different people. Maybe it's just good ol' sexism, where people can't believe that a woman could or would be independent from her spouse.
I think there are some reasons and non-reasons for it, in that the non-reasons are because the fact that some people dislike Hillary may have little to nothing to do with President Clinton.
Reasons:
1.) Individuals who disagreed with President Clinton's policy positions might be concerned that Hillary will have very similar positions, while some may think she is essentially a proxy for President Clinton essentially taking his former office again, in some way.. To wit, she will certainly seek out his opinions as relates to some matters.
2.) President Clinton has found himself deep in some sexual harassment type scandals that have been throughout his time in public office, not just as President. When it comes to allegations outside of those incidences that were consensual, (such as with Lewinsky) some people may not take too kindly to what they may perceive as Hillary's tendency to downplay those or ignore them completely. I'm not saying such people are right, just that may be what some of them are thinking.
____
However, it is undeniable that some of the people who deem Hillary unfavorable deem President Clinton favorable. To wit, President Clinton is generally viewed favorably, overall, and often by a percentage that exceeds any margin of error for certain polls. For that reason, it cannot be said that ALL who dislike Hillary are tying Hillary to President Clinton. If we look at those people, other than those few who absolutely would not want to see a woman as president regardless of other circumstances, these are a few general categories that may (individually or in combination) might apply to those people:
1.) They do not believe she is trustworthy. Again, while Hillary is deemed more trustworthy that Trump, in the context of her against John Q. Republican (generic candidate) people would be referring to Clinton as, 'Mired in scandal,' and to a large extent, Trump has taken the heat off of that burner. Both directly (news cycle terms) and by comparison, overall.
2.) You also have to look at things in the realm of personal preference. Many people vote for one candidate or another, and this is often true of extremely local elections in small towns (but can also apply to a small degree nationally) in terms of whether or not they find the candidate, 'Likable.' A big part of, 'Favorability,' is likability, in fact, some people actually directly interpret the question that way. Many people consider H. Clinton an opportunist, others still consider her a brash and shrill woman with an annoying speaking voice. She does have a tendency to sound as though she is shouting, but has finally toned that down somewhat recently.
Bill Clinton, more than anything, was politically successful because people often looked at him as being, 'One of us,' no silver spoon, no tremendous inherent advantages or any of that. While H. Clinton also comes from a somewhat pedestrian upbringing, she has been involved in the political process so long that it becomes difficult for some people to associate her as being, 'One of us.' In that sense, she may have been somewhat unfortunate to be First Lady, as strange as that sounds, she probably would come off as more, 'Folksy,' were she not so far removed from her upbringing at this point.
3.) Also, yes, we cannot ignore the elephant in the room that some people are simply not comfortable with the thought of a woman President, in general. I do not believe that otherwise would-be Democratic voters for John Q. Democrat represent a majority of such people, to wit, I think most such people would not vote for a Democrat anyway. Certainly, though, would-be Democrats do make up a non-zero number of these people.
4.) Finally, Hillary had the disadvantage of running against Sanders in the primaries. While I do not believe that a majority of Sanders' supporters would adamantly refuse to vote for Clinton, again, you certainly have a non-zero amount of people who would. Furthermore, some such people continue to cling tenaciously to the belief that the Primary process was rigged against him.
Quote:Marco Rubio might have had a shot against Hillary. However, his approach and identity carry fundamental contradictions. He (naturally) appeals, and expects to appeal, to Hispanic voters. But most Republican positions (kill the poor, drive out them furriners) are antithetical to most Hispanics. Plus, Rubio would face anti-Hispanic sentiment from within his own party, which, let's face it, has had for decades as its sole goal to keep rich white men in power.
I agree that they do, but it wasn't by necessity. Once again, I am imagining a scenario in which Trump had not run for the nomination at all, (as you can see by my prior that Jeb Bush was once viable) and in this scenario, ALL of the Republican nominees (or certainly most of) would not have had to move as far to the right on Immigration Reform as they did. While Trump loved to boast that he was the only one even talking about it, I think it would have still come up in the Primary process, but they could have taken less extreme positions.
Once again, Trump's policy position, from any other candidate, would have seemed nothing short of bizarre and extreme. It still was bizarre and extreme, but it resonated among who we now refer to as Trump's, 'Base.'
In any event, you don't go into a Presidential Election as a Republican candidate thinking you are going to win among Hispanics, but you do try to, 'Stop the bleeding,' to some extent. You certainly want to try to win among as many Hispanics as you can, and being a Hispanic candidate doesn't hurt. As far as resentment of the fact that Rubio is Hispanic, if you had asked me a couple of years ago, I would have suggested that the majority of Republicans are not racists and it wouldn't have really mattered (except to a few) whether he was Hispanic or not.
Either way, I don't think Rubio would have suffered any such thing among the party elite, it might have just cost him a few right-wing extremists to, perhaps, some third-party candidates. However, I will say that he would have gained more Hispanics than he lost racists.
Quote:But there's another aspect of a non-Trump opposing candidate to Hillary. Trump has galvanized the deplorables. He got them off their couches and out of their trailers to vote for him in the primaries. He got them to drive their pickup trucks to his rallies. Would they be doing the same for Bush, Rubio, etc. on Election Day? Joe Sixpack will vote for Trump because doing so gives him a chance to celebrate the hatred in his heart and the stupidity in his brain. But would Joe Sixpack risk missing Celebrity Wrestling Smackdown on TV just to stand in line to vote for Bush or Rubio? I doubt it.
I don't really know how many of them that Trump is turning out that wouldn't otherwise be there, but I can say, compared to those he appears to have lost, (comparing his percentages of certain demographics to Romney's in 2012) the people he may have brought on board certainly do not appear to have compensated for those who he has lost. You can galvanize a base, but a base has to be there to galvanize.
I would compare that to the Revel, or maybe it should be the Revel in reverse. Certain high-rollers were juiced about a place like the Revel coming in, but they couldn't pull enough of the non high-roller market to survive in the face of their enormous debt load. The people that Romney got that Trump lost are the debt load, the high rollers are Trump's new fan base, but the revenue is not overcoming the debt...and Trump had to MAKE money compared to Romney (get more voters, by percentage) to continue this metaphor.
Yeah, if you flip poorly educated whites to Trump in all of the states and keep the percentages the same, then Trump probably wins damn near every state. If you give Hillary her percentage of women in every state, but then get every single woman to vote, same thing. Trump may have galvanized supporters, he may have supporters who were not previously part of the political process, but he cannot make up for would-be supporters that he has lost as a result of his words, positions and actions.
He is less well-liked than Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton would be less well-liked (in all likelihood) than John Q. Republican.
Quote: Mission146
He is less well-liked than Hillary Clinton, Hillary Clinton would be less well-liked (in all likelihood) than John Q. Republican.
I dunno. So much of the rhetoric I hear, from a variety of people and locations, including the Breakfast Bloviator (the guy who gives loud pro-Trump sermons over his waffles in the place where I like to have breakfast), is focused on one objection to Clinton: she's an uppity bitch. Women shouldn't be in positions of power because they're too weak, except for the ones who aren't, in which case they're shrill and pushy. It may be just that crude, and that simple.
I also don't get the "she's not trustworthy" crap. The email horse has been beaten by Republicans to the point where it's just a dark smear on the ground. The Benghazi non-issue died stillborn, though Republicans likewise continue to flog the corpse. And as far as her career is concerned--well, she's a politician. Why is that an inherently bad thing? If the next occupant of the Oval Office, and every subsequent one, ISN'T a politician, we're all in deep trouble. And she has made lots of money in speaking fees. Well, if a man does that, he's a savvy entrepreneur. If a woman does that, she's an uppity bitch.
I suppose we'll never really know how much of the Hillary-hatred out there is simple sexism (it certainly seems to be on this board) until we get more female Presidential candidates. If another female Democrat runs for office in 2020 or 2024, we'll at least have a data point for comparison.
Quote: JoeshlabotnikI dunno. So much of the rhetoric I hear, from a variety of people and locations, including the Breakfast Bloviator (the guy who gives loud pro-Trump sermons over his waffles in the place where I like to have breakfast), is focused on one objection to Clinton: she's an uppity bitch. Women shouldn't be in positions of power because they're too weak, except for the ones who aren't, in which case they're shrill and pushy. It may be just that crude, and that simple.
There are certainly, 'Breakfast Bloviators,' to be found here, there and everywhere. I also tend to accept the fact that people such as those tend to often be the most outspoken, but I do not accept that people such as those represent the majority of Republicans. The thing about the Republicans is that they actually have two bases, though some people represent both of those bases, but I look at them as being Social Conservatives and Fiscal Conservatives, and therein lies the divide.
When you look at some of (not all) the Social Conservatives, I could certainly see where many of those people would cross over into the realm of people that have a problem with the notion of a female President, in general. I don't believe that is a generality that would extend as often to Fiscal Conservatives, such people would simply not be found of Clinton's policies, in general terms, rather than just the notion of a female President.
Anyway, it takes more than certain people being the loudest to make of them a majority, or even a substantial subset, for that matter. But, by God, some people on that side of the political realm are good at being the loudest.
Quote:I also don't get the "she's not trustworthy" crap. The email horse has been beaten by Republicans to the point where it's just a dark smear on the ground. The Benghazi non-issue died stillborn, though Republicans likewise continue to flog the corpse. And as far as her career is concerned--well, she's a politician. Why is that an inherently bad thing? If the next occupant of the Oval Office, and every subsequent one, ISN'T a politician, we're all in deep trouble. And she has made lots of money in speaking fees. Well, if a man does that, he's a savvy entrepreneur. If a woman does that, she's an uppity bitch.
It has, but they would be doing the same thing in the event that they had a different Nominee, and it would actually mean more than it does now! It's kind of like the movie Office Space in that way when you look at what we might term a, 'Typical,' Presidential Election process: Part of the brilliance of the work atmosphere in that movie is how Mike Judge directed it such that so many personality traits that would otherwise be innocuous stand out to such a great extent against the surrounding (dull) atmosphere.
Most Presidential Elections are the same way, any hint of a scandal or inconsistency that would lead to a candidate being adjudicated by the public to be less trustworthy stands out, because we are comparing it to a very bland atmosphere that otherwise largely conforms to our expectations. Professional and subdued, because the politicians themselves are professional at doing that.
The E-Mail horse continues to be beaten because it is one of the few horses they even have to beat, at least, in comparison to their own nominee. However, I think the horse would have been beaten just as much by John Q. Republican, were Hillary actually going up against John Q. Republican, with the major difference being that the public would perceive it as a tremendous scandal. Again, that is compared to whatever the closest applicable standard might be the case with our generic John Q. Republican.
The issue is not illegitimate, in my opinion, and it does have a not insubstantial impact on the public perception of her overall trustworthiness as a potential Commander-in-Chief. Her trustworthiness numbers are in the toilet, and that's compared to her already low favorable rating. That means that you have several people truly looking at this as a, 'Lesser of two evils,' situation. Her polling numbers, in terms of expected Popular vote, far exceed the numbers with respect to the number of people that say they trust her. Generally speaking, people do not trust her, and it's not particularly close in terms of majority, a huge majority of people do not explicitly trust her. People who do not trust her will be voting for her.
Some of these people are toss-up and potential votes for John Q. Republican, but not for Donald Trump.
Quote:I suppose we'll never really know how much of the Hillary-hatred out there is simple sexism (it certainly seems to be on this board) until we get more female Presidential candidates. If another female Democrat runs for office in 2020 or 2024, we'll at least have a data point for comparison.
That's true, and I do not disagree with you that some of it, a non-zero amount, is simple sexism. A poll that pointedly asks, 'Are you a sexist,' would generally not garner many affirmative responses, so all we can really do is speculate until we get some data from future occurrences of a female being a major party Presidential candidate.
When it comes to the side of the political spectrum generally associated, whether or not that association be fair, with sexism, though, that party has certainly put many women in office in lower Executive positions as well as in the highest Federal positions such as Senate and House of Representatives. I simply don't believe that, 'Sexist,' is a defining quality of the generic Republican voter, but it certainly applies to some, as I am sure it applies to some Democratic voters as well.
There are women who feel that men would make better presidents, but of course, they are fewer in quantity then men who feel the same way.
There are so many factors working against Hillary that it would be almost impossible to gauge the sexism, unless you asked as an exit poll, "did Hillary being a woman factor in your voting choice (for or against)" and understanding the "lie factor". Some people are probably not even cognizant of their existing sexism. Hillary is also a Clinton, a Democrat, and "crooked".
Undoubtedly he will become a favorite on FoxNews (already is) and he will seek the spotlight on any occasion. But there aren't enough people in his "movement" to do anything of note unless they take an asymmetric approach (aka, kill the president).
Ultimately, this has been a terrible, horrifying election cycle, and I have no doubt that a mainstream GOP candidate would have taken Hillary down given MSM needing to fill a vacuum (in the case of no GOP scandals, WikiLeaks, the Clinton Foundation, and the Email 'scandal' may have dominated) and we might have had an election about issues. Certainly the GOP faithful would be courting to immigrants and a Rubio might have got enough Hispanic votes to take Florida and Nevada. The economic GOP plan might have been more courting to votes it required and the campaign might have become more funded.
In the end, if the USA is going to be supporting a three party system (the Democrats, the mainstream GOP, and the "alt-rights" or Tea-Party or Liberatarians) the Dems will be in power in the Executive branch for quite some time to come.
Flip those three states and Hillary's roadmap gets tougher.
If you look at the trends, you see that the debates have really hurt Trump. You see on 538 after the first debate of a big trump Dip and then a recovery, and you see the same trend after the 2nd debate, and you will likely see the same trend after the 3rd.
Though I must say that people are really making hay of Trump's statement of not accepting the results (should he lose), and that might have been a dealbreaker for some of his supporters. Hillary is likely making a run in Texas, though I would make sure that Ohio and Nevada are shorn up first. Missouri and Georgia are also in play, and the Dems are pushing for down-ticket votes in the Senate and Congress. I would be working very hard to pick off these tossups.
270toWin has 49 competitive races for the Congress with the Dems at 182 and the GOP at 204. Pundits are looking at a 16 seat gain for the Democrats putting them at 204, or 14 short of the majority. But there are another 10 seats classified as weak GOP holds. Congress might be in play.
The Senate is also very much in play with the Dems getting a majority at 52-53 seats.
Quote: ams288RealClearPolitics has moved Texas(!) into the toss up column.
I'd be willing to toss Texas up if we could be sure that it never came down again. I've always been in favor of the Texas Expulsion Movement. Why wait for them to secede, I say.
That would really be a sea change if the Land of Ted Crud went Democrat. Next thing you know, they'd stop shooting at Mexicans, and maybe even the state's collective IQ would inch past 25.
I do like a good bowl of Texas chili, though.
Quote: boymimbo
270toWin has 49 competitive races for the Congress with the Dems at 182 and the GOP at 204. Pundits are looking at a 16 seat gain for the Democrats putting them at 204, or 14 short of the majority. But there are another 10 seats classified as weak GOP holds. Congress might be in play.
The Senate is also very much in play with the Dems getting a majority at 52-53 seats.
The House is probably out of reach, realistically, but it's beginning to look like the Senate will definitely go Democrat. Of course, in this election season, who knows. Maybe a video of Donald Trump strangling a live puppy while several Congressional candidates watch and applaud will surface.
I think that every Democratic seeking a House or Senate seat should hammer his/her opponent relentlessly on why he/she hasn't disavowed Trump, or just as bad, waited until last week to do so. It's beginning to look as if FINALLY, any association with Trump is toxic. "Hey, you supported that douchebag" should be enough to get ANY Democrat elected.
Quote: boymimbo
In the end, if the USA is going to be supporting a three party system (the Democrats, the mainstream GOP, and the "alt-rights" or Tea-Party or Liberatarians) the Dems will be in power in the Executive branch for quite some time to come.
Well then, Trump has been a well-disguised blessing for the country. Imagine the consequences of a Republican President:
1. The repeal of the ACA, with over ten million people suddenly losing access to health care. Widespread suffering and death.
2. The packing of the Supreme Court with crusty, nasty, white, reactionary old farts. A return to the good old values of 1950 (or earlier). No more of that Civil Rights crap.
3. The repeal of environmental protections. Polluted skies a la China and rivers that catch fire.
4. The death penalty for abortions.
5. Tax policies restructured so that the rich pay nothing.
6. Systematic disenfranchisement of minorities and the poor.
7. Mandatory worship, on pain of execution, of the Man in the Sky.
Possibly the worst aspect of complete Republican control of the government is that they'd make certain that they could never lose that control ever again. They would probably simply outlaw elections and make every Republican in his/her position for life. They'd force the remaining Democrats to resign, or maybe just have them all killed.
We'd be the world's largest banana republic. We could probably do that oppressive one-party tyranny thing SO much better than Russia.
Someone about to become president because she married the right man is not one of them.
