Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 51 (9179 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,180 Year: 5,437/9,624 Month: 462/323 Week: 102/204 Day: 2/16 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The 2016 United States Presidential Election
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 996
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 16 of 892 (792468)
10-10-2016 10:02 AM
Reply to: Message 15 by RAZD
10-10-2016 9:48 AM


Re: PEEPING TOM @ Miss Universe
Frankly I am thoroughly disgusted by this years election garbage, these cess-pool occupying candidates, by far the worst choices in decades.
And this was echoed in the recent debate. I could only stomach watching parts of it. But I did watch some of the post-debate analysis. And one of the folks on CNN said that 'politics has sunk to a new low'. I would say that is probably accurate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RAZD, posted 10-10-2016 9:48 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by RAZD, posted 10-10-2016 11:04 AM Diomedes has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 996
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(12)
Message 29 of 892 (792561)
10-11-2016 1:30 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by ringo
10-11-2016 12:15 PM


Recent Polls and Election Predictions
The current electoral map from Real Clear Politics has Clinton with a nearly 100 point advantage over Trump:
realclearpolitics.com
She is also ahead in most of the battleground states, including the critical ones of Ohio and Florida.
Just before the debate, Trump had narrowed the gap to within something that could be considered a 'reasonable chance'. But the recent debates along with his antics have basically imploded the campaign. So unless he pulls some massive rabbit out of his hat at the final debate, I don't see him turning things around.
One thing I wanted to add regarding the two candidates: I think there is a false equivalency going on here. Yes, Clinton has her problems. She is probably corrupt. She is a manipulator. She used her influence in the DNC to railroad Bernie. She probably has numerous skeletons in her closet. I acknowledge all of that.
But at least she is a politician with a pretty impressive pedigree and level of experience. While I can cite issues with her character, I also have to acknowledge her accomplishments.
Now look at Trump. I am not going to sugar coat this: he is a JOKE. A complete and utter joke. Not only does he have many of the same character flaws as Clinton, he also brings to the table absolutely no political experience. And to top it all off, his 'business experience' is a giant bullshit story. He has never disclosed his actual net worth. His tax returns remain hidden. In fact, the only window that we have into his actual business acumen are the items on record; his four bankruptcies and his near $1 billion (that's billion with a 'B') loss in 1995. In fact, the only thing he is running on is his fame. He is a glory hound and an attention whore. He saw an opportunity to elevate his status in this election cycle and he capitalized on it.
So who is ultimately to blame for the Trump candidacy? Many point fingers at the media for giving him free publicity. Many point to the voters and their ignorance. But the TRUE culprit and the root cause is actually the Republican party establishment. They are the ones that have been spoon-feeding their electorate an endless stream of rhetoric. They fueled the Tea Party fringe. They enabled the Birther Nuts. They rallied against immigrants and illegals. They were completely obstructionist in the House and Senate. They threw around terms like 'socialist', 'communist', 'marxist', etc. And their electorate just absorbed all of that.
And what happened? Trump. When you look at what he is and what he represents: he is literally the embodiment of ALL that rhetoric lumped into one human being. And by the time the GOP realized what had happened, it was too late.
The moral of the story is: never create a monster. Because it will eventually turn on you.
Perhaps it would be in the GOP's best interest to put down Ayd Rand's Atlas Shrugged and pick up a copy of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. Maybe they might learn something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by ringo, posted 10-11-2016 12:15 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 10-12-2016 11:42 AM Diomedes has replied
 Message 229 by Diomedes, posted 10-31-2016 11:21 AM Diomedes has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 996
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(2)
Message 35 of 892 (792650)
10-12-2016 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by ringo
10-12-2016 11:42 AM


Re: Recent Polls and Election Predictions
As one commentator put it, elections are about adding, not subtracting. Unless the Republicans learn to broaden their base instead of solidifying what they already have, they're doomed to be a second-rate party (like the Canadian Conservatives).
Exactly. Ironically, even President Shit for Brains (Dubya) understood this. He actually did a lot of outreach to Hispanics during his campaign. Any Conservative that doesn't have his/her head up their ass would recognize that this a large voting block of people who generally have conservative principles. They are religious. They are family oriented. But instead, the right decides to placate to the nutjobs and focus on building a 'UUGE' wall to keep out them Mexican rapists.
And it's even got so bad now, that demonizing a Gold Star Family like the Khan's is socially acceptable on the right; so long as that family are some fuzzy foreigners.
I have to admit, although I don't generally like the guy or agree with him, at least Paul Ryan, who was not enamored with The Donald from the get go, has finally thrown up his hands in indignation and basically shown the middle finger to the Republican nominee. So I have to give him some props for that.
I wonder what sort of conversations will occur at the RNC when this election is done. They did that 'autopsy' after Romney lost by a large margin to Obama in 2012. They supposedly came out of that with some ideas on how to improve their chances in subsequent elections. And the end result there was The Donald.
Not trying to judge, but whomever was running that autopsy and making suggestions should probably be fired.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by ringo, posted 10-12-2016 11:42 AM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Theodoric, posted 10-12-2016 3:23 PM Diomedes has replied
 Message 38 by 1.61803, posted 10-12-2016 4:53 PM Diomedes has not replied
 Message 55 by ringo, posted 10-13-2016 11:52 AM Diomedes has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 996
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 37 of 892 (792653)
10-12-2016 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by Theodoric
10-12-2016 3:23 PM


Re: Recent Polls and Election Predictions
In actuality the suggestions were pretty good. The problem is the base fought against them and never would have supported them. A party that is the home of racists, anti-Semites, white nationalists and misogynists can never make the tent bigger.
But this is still due to the rhetoric that has been permeating on the right. As I mentioned, Dubya actually did effective outreach to Hispanics. And he still won (well, sort of), in 2000 and 2004. The problem is, this excessive rhetoric reached a fever pitch during the Obama administration. I think maybe actually seeing a black man in the Oval Office just put some Republicans over the edge. Idiots like Mitch McConnell, a guy who looks like what would happen if Franklin the Turtle lived to be 500 and eventually left his shell, pushed forth the notion that Obama had to be a 'one term president'. And this was before Obama was even sworn in!
In the end, while the Republican base may have certain views, they are guided to those views by the establishment. And that is what happened with Trump. Their fixation was on immigrants, birtherism, and 'insiders'. And they fixated on that because they were told to fixate on that. All other considerations fell to the wayside. Including their supposed 'Christian Values'. Look at how Trump behaves; he can boast about being able to grope women and grab them by the crotch and it does NOTHING to affect his numbers with the base.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Theodoric, posted 10-12-2016 3:23 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Taq, posted 10-12-2016 4:54 PM Diomedes has replied
 Message 45 by nwr, posted 10-12-2016 9:52 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 996
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 40 of 892 (792666)
10-12-2016 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Taq
10-12-2016 4:54 PM


Re: Recent Polls and Election Predictions
When your only two actions are obstruction and demonizing your opponent, Trump is what you get. Republicans created the environment that allowed Trump's rise to prominence, and they should be held to account. The only thing keeping them afloat is that their hair brained Tea Party members will vote with Republicans in Congress, and their control of congressional districting through state governments.
That pretty much sums it up. And let's not forget gerrymandering. Another tactic they used, especially in 2010 when the Congressional districts were re-drawn.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Taq, posted 10-12-2016 4:54 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Taq, posted 10-12-2016 6:05 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 996
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(1)
Message 51 of 892 (792695)
10-13-2016 9:35 AM
Reply to: Message 48 by RAZD
10-13-2016 8:52 AM


Re: Recent Polls and Election Predictions
The senate is the most likely to fall, so at least appointments can be approved
That is what I am truly hoping for. Because it will be a nice slap in the face to the obstructionist Republicans who refused to consider any candidate. Even when Obama threw them a bone and nominated Merrick Garland.
If Hillary wins and they take over the senate, I would love to see them appoint the most far left individual they can find. Although my instincts tell me that if they the Republicans do lose the senate, they will use their lame duck time frame to rush Garland's nomination through the process.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 10-13-2016 8:52 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 10-14-2016 11:08 PM Diomedes has not replied
 Message 68 by xongsmith, posted 10-15-2016 5:15 PM Diomedes has replied
 Message 84 by Diomedes, posted 10-17-2016 4:26 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 996
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 70 of 892 (792931)
10-15-2016 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by xongsmith
10-15-2016 5:15 PM


Re: Recent Polls and Election Predictions
Couldn't Obama simply withdraw the nomination November 9th???
"You had your chance, suckers..."
I'd be the first one to piss myself laughing if that happened.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by xongsmith, posted 10-15-2016 5:15 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 996
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(5)
Message 84 of 892 (792966)
10-17-2016 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Diomedes
10-13-2016 9:35 AM


The Supreme Court - More Obstruction
Well, the Republican controlled senate said that they would not acknowledge a nominee from President Obama because they decided to make up a new rule on the fly that a 'lame duck president' shouldn't be able to appoint a new judge to the supreme court.
Unfortunately, John McCain has taken that one step further indicating that they will likely block ANY nominee put forth by Hillary Clinton, if she were president:
Republicans May Block Any Of Clinton's Supreme Court Nominees, McCain Says | HuffPost Latest News
So for those keeping score, the new rules as dictated by Republicans regarding the Supreme court are as follows:
1) All nominees put forth by lame duck presidents shall not be considered. Unless the president is a Republican.
2) All nominees put forth by sitting Democratic presidents shall always be ignored.
3) All nominees put forth by sitting Republican presidents must be voted in without question. Because to do otherwise is unpatriotic.
Well, glad I have that figured out.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Diomedes, posted 10-13-2016 9:35 AM Diomedes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Taq, posted 10-17-2016 4:33 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 996
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(1)
Message 109 of 892 (793087)
10-20-2016 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by Percy
10-20-2016 2:25 PM


Re: The Good News
It's encouraging that crazy talk sounds crazy to most people.
Yet sadly, it is considered 'straight talk' by a large portion of our electorate.
To quote the comedian Jim Jefferies:
"If you're someone that says you like Donald Trump because he is a straight talker, you're as dumb as shit!"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 10-20-2016 2:25 PM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Diomedes, posted 10-21-2016 9:38 AM Diomedes has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 996
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 117 of 892 (793122)
10-21-2016 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by Diomedes
10-20-2016 2:42 PM


The Senate - Current Polls
We've been so focused on the presidential election here, most have not taken a look at how the senate races are going.
According to Real Clear Politics, the Democrats are poised to pick up four seats:
realclearpolitics.com
That would make it a tie; 50/50. However, if Clinton wins the presidency, that essentially gives the senate to the Democrats with the VP tie-breaker vote in their favor.
The house will still stay in Republican hands (thanks in large part to gerrymandering), but the Dems will be picking up a few seats there as well.
So projections are for a Republican controlled house and a Democratic controlled senate and presidency. The good news there is that will essentially keep Obamacare intact and also likely ensure Supreme Court picks that will likely be more socially liberal. The bad news is we are in for more political gridlock over the coming years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by Diomedes, posted 10-20-2016 2:42 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 996
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


Message 119 of 892 (793133)
10-21-2016 3:06 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by marc9000
10-21-2016 12:25 PM


Now that the 3 presidential debates are done, what are the opinions here about the debate moderation? Was Wallace of Fox news more biased than...Martha Raddatz (and others from the mainstream) less biased, or about the same?
I am not a Fox News fan, but I have to give credit where credit is due: I thought Chris Wallace did an outstanding job as moderator in the last debate. He asked poignant questions, he did not let either Clinton or Trump divert too much from answers, and he was able to keep the audience controlled.
I thought Martha and Anderson did an admirable job in the second debate. But being that it was a town hall, the format is somewhat different and the moderators aren't actually always the focal point.
Rounding things out, I wasn't that impressed with Lester Holt in the first debate. Although I will give him a little leeway in that it was the first debate and nobody really knew what to expect from the candidates. Especially Trump. And once things started to move forward in the debate, Holt didn't seem to be able to keep them on point or to stop Trump from constantly interrupting Hillary.
Just my two cents.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by marc9000, posted 10-21-2016 12:25 PM marc9000 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by LamarkNewAge, posted 10-21-2016 4:17 PM Diomedes has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 996
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(1)
Message 153 of 892 (793214)
10-24-2016 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 152 by Percy
10-24-2016 9:19 AM


I think Pressie meant that polls underestimated the Trump vote in the primaries, and that polls might again be underestimating the Trump vote in the general election. That would mean Trump's 45% could actually be 50%, not 40%.
I don't think the polls actually underestimated the Trump vote in the primaries. I think that the pundits just underestimated Trump. He always seemed to poll at the 30% mark in the primaries, but because there were so many other candidates in the field, their votes got diluted. Trump was merely the loudest voice in the room.
But in the general election, where substance carries more weight than bravado, Trump is now starting to crumble. He has a massive gap with women; larger than any other candidate in modern history. He has alienated every minority on the planet. And even among men, he only polls well with non-college educated white men. College educated men side with Hillary.
FYI, the latest from Real Clear Politics show Hillary with a decisive advantage right now:
realclearpolitics.com
She currently has 262 electoral votes basically sewn up. These are states where the polls indicate a decisive lead for her outside the margin of error. In fact, based on the current polling and the trends in other states, she only has to win Minnesota to win the presidency.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by Percy, posted 10-24-2016 9:19 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by Taq, posted 10-24-2016 4:16 PM Diomedes has not replied
 Message 186 by Pressie, posted 10-25-2016 5:54 AM Diomedes has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 996
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(1)
Message 229 of 892 (793502)
10-31-2016 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by Diomedes
10-11-2016 1:30 PM


Latest Polls
So far, the fallout from the recent email snafu seems to not have had much of an effect on the numbers. Latest from Real Clear Politics shows Clinton with about 263 electoral votes sewn up:
realclearpolitics.com
As it stands, all she needs to do is win Colorado and she has won the election. And she is currently ahead there by 4.5 points.
Trump has increased his lead slightly in Ohio and Florida is still waffling back and forth. But otherwise, not much in the way of change.
My guess is unless something of substance comes out of that FBI investigation in the next few days, it appears most of the email controversy is already baked into the results.
Then again, anything can happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Diomedes, posted 10-11-2016 1:30 PM Diomedes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by NoNukes, posted 10-31-2016 1:19 PM Diomedes has not replied
 Message 233 by Taq, posted 11-01-2016 11:05 AM Diomedes has replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 996
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(6)
Message 234 of 892 (793550)
11-01-2016 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by Taq
11-01-2016 11:05 AM


Re: Latest Polls
I think the Trump campaign knows this, even if they are unwilling to address it publicly. When someone from the Trump campaign is asked to comment on the national polls they try to redirect by saying that they are ahead in Ohio, as if Trump is running to be President of Ohio.
The problem is also exacerbated by the rhetoric coming from Trump about the election being 'rigged'. He is essentially setting the stage for defeat, but because he is so thin skinned, he won't accept a legitimate loss. It has to be illegitimate. The problem is, many of his most strident supporters are taking those statements literally. My big concern is some nitwit goes on a rampage after a Trump loss because Trump stupidly called for people to exercise '2nd Amendment Solutions'. The guy is so batshit he literally doesn't have a filter of any sort. And that is dangerous.
Hillary is not perfect, but she summed up Trump in the best way possible: "Anyone that can be baited by a Tweet is not fit to be president."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Taq, posted 11-01-2016 11:05 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by RAZD, posted 11-02-2016 9:53 AM Diomedes has not replied
 Message 275 by Diomedes, posted 11-06-2016 10:42 AM Diomedes has not replied

  
Diomedes
Member
Posts: 996
From: Central Florida, USA
Joined: 09-13-2013


(3)
Message 275 of 892 (793832)
11-06-2016 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by Diomedes
11-01-2016 12:59 PM


Well, I did my part
Early voting was available in my county and I just cast my ballot for Hillary. Florida is a critical swing state and I am certainly not taking any chances with the potential of President Great Pumpkin.
Tons of Trump signs in my area. Where I live is pretty affluent and we have lots of Republicans around here.
By the way, I do have to point out the irony of someone living in a million dollar house with Trump signs all over their lawn. For people who want to 'Make America Great Again', they seem to have done well for themselves.
Current polls show Hillary with a very slight lead in Florida. The one encouraging sign is that Latino early voting turnout is huge this cycle relative to others. More than double what it was in the previous election. So with luck, they will be the deciding factor and give Florida to Hillary.
By the way, is anyone besides me concerned that if Trump loses, he will not concede defeat and try to drag this out for weeks by questioning the legitimacy of the election outcome?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by Diomedes, posted 11-01-2016 12:59 PM Diomedes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by NoNukes, posted 11-06-2016 11:48 AM Diomedes has not replied
 Message 277 by ramoss, posted 11-06-2016 11:51 AM Diomedes has not replied
 Message 279 by Percy, posted 11-06-2016 4:45 PM Diomedes has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024