2016 US Election: what happened in Nevada?

[mormont]

8 hours ago, Altherion said:

Political "facts" are not truly facts in the same sense as the laws of nature -- human beings created them and we can change them. I wouldn't be so sure that Trump is ignorant of them. It is entirely possible that he is fully aware of them and deliberately ignoring them as a means to an end.

Really? That's the best defence you've got? If you're relying on this sort of argument, it's really time to take a step back and ponder whether you really need to re-evaluate.

8 hours ago, Altherion said:

In any case, the campaign he has run so far is much more amusing than the run of the mill political campaigns the people who gave more than $100M to J. Bush and Rubio wanted to have.

Huge swathes of the country and indeed the international community are terrified and/or appalled by it, but that's OK, so long as you're having a chuckle?

8 hours ago, Altherion said:

More importantly, Trump has brought certain aspects of the US political system to light. For example, it was widely believed that to make politically incorrect statements the way he did would immediately doom any candidacy, but he figured out a way to make them work.

And in some way, popularising hate speech is a good thing in your view? Oh, right, free speech. Except that the right to say things is not the same as the willingness to bring them into the mainstream political discourse.

8 hours ago, Altherion said:

I disagree.

I know that. You can also disagree with gravity when you fall off a cliff. Won't change a thing.

[Falcon2908]

Trump will be president

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, Falcon2908 said:

Trump will be president

I sincerely hope you are wrong but I'm frightened you might be correct.

[TrackerNeil]

9 hours ago, Myshkin said:

Not if you don't buy the DWS as corrupt Clinton agent narrative. To me this just smacks of petty vindictiveness. Not really a quality I want in my President.

Even if DWS were a Clinton agent, what did it change? Can anyone plausibly demonstrate that this or that state caucus/primary would have gone the other wayif she hadn't somehow interfered? Even if you assume that 10% of Clinton's current delegates were somehow swayed by DWS' machinations (and that would be quite a claim), that leaves Clinton with a more than one hundred delegate lead. In short, even if you proved that DWS was totally in the bag for Hillary, you still haven't proven that it significantly affected the outcome of the race. To paraphrase the Big O, in politics, the one who gets the most votes wins, and that's Clinton.

[Mr Fixit]

15 hours ago, Shryke said:

Yes. I remember no one thought well of them either. And kept telling Clinton it was over and she should drop out and stop going so negative.

My response to that would be: let the democratic process play itself out! Why should someone bow out early? It's not only about getting enough delegate votes to win, which as of this moment is highly unlikely for Bernie, but also about having policy leverage against the other candidate when the times comes to, how the guys over there like to say, unite the party. Because, let's face it -- though many will certainly disagree -- Hillary has made a career of lying and "pivoting" and changing positions. The so-called pundits are already going on about how Bernie forced her to the left on many issues, and that's the truth. He brought certain issues into the limelight and it can only be seen as beneficial to the party identity (and certainly to the party base). The more pressure he exerts on her in pursuit of his policies, the better!

Anything else is pure establishment defense. Like those Democratic and Republican party elites have some god given right to run the country however they see fit and then a spoilsport comes along and refuses to play the part of a preordained loser who's only there to convince everyone else that "see, this is a democracy, you have a choice!"

If I were part of both party elites, I'd start asking the right questions for a change. And those questions are: "Why has our political process become so broken that on both sides non-establishment candidates openly scornful of the system are doing so well? Why is according to the latest polls Congressional approval at mindblowing 4%? Why has the US, according to the study done by professors from Princeton and Northwestern, become an oligarchy?" 

The question is most definitely not: "When will Bernie bow out? Doesn't he see how much damage he does to party unity?" (In your own words: "he wants to burn everything to the ground." Well, Even if he does -- which he most certainly does not -- I'd say, let him. Should the American people cry over the demise of a rigged corporate-owned one-party system?")

[Mr Fixit]

3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

I sincerely hope you are wrong but I'm frightened you might be correct.

I hope he is correct. I also hope the US is in for some rude awakening, for its own sake and for the sake of the rest of the planet.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Mr. Fixit,

Then super Puti and his laser nipples can become savior we all know him to be.  

[Mexal]

Trump's connections to the mob. 

[Altherion]

9 hours ago, mormont said:

Really? That's the best defence you've got? If you're relying on this sort of argument, it's really time to take a step back and ponder whether you really need to re-evaluate.

It's not an argument, it's merely a reminder which I felt was necessary given that people here make statements like this one:

Quote

I know that. You can also disagree with gravity when you fall off a cliff. Won't change a thing.

I personally do not have enough information to fully understand Trump's campaign and I don't believe anyone outside of his inner circle has the necessary data. My point was simply that there are multiple possible motivations for Trump's actions and thus also multiple possible behaviors should he succeed.

Quote

Huge swathes of the country and indeed the international community are terrified and/or appalled by it, but that's OK, so long as you're having a chuckle?

There has always been a substantial number of people who were terrified and/or appalled by every president I can remember (Clinton, Bush, Obama), albeit for very different reasons. Presidential candidates which I find amusing are much more rare.

Quote

And in some way, popularising hate speech is a good thing in your view? Oh, right, free speech. Except that the right to say things is not the same as the willingness to bring them into the mainstream political discourse.

Some of the things he has said are over the line, but the overall strategy was interesting and quite plausibly more good than bad. Over the past decade or so, government, academia, the media, large scale commercial interests and of course groups custom-made for the purpose have been pushing an expanded definition of what is considered offensive (and thus a reduced range of what may safely be said in public). I was really curious how many people actually agree with this and Trump provided at least part of the answer. Depending on what happens next, he may also have slowed, stopped or perhaps even reversed the recent rise of effective restrictions on speech.

[Dany's Silver]

I don't think that Drumpf's appeal to the extreme right wing, Tea Party base of the Republican party is a good thing. He has shown that there is a deep-seated racist underbelly, particularly in the American south, that is disturbing to say the least. I sincerely hope that he doesn't become president, but I welcome all Drumpf-refugees to Canada if he does win! As for my own preference to the outcome of the US election.... #FeelTheBERN 

[Red Hermit]

I don't see much if any good coming from a Trump presidency.  From what GOPers in congress have said after meeting Trump in private it sounds like he might be content to let the GOP establishment run things while he is President.  Meanwhile Trump has stirred up white nationalists and encouraged/defended violence against political opponents.  If he wins I foresee the U.S. becoming a more violent, anarchic, mentally ill country.

[mormont]

2 hours ago, Altherion said:

It's not an argument, it's merely a reminder which I felt was necessary given that people here make statements like this one:

I personally do not have enough information to fully understand Trump's campaign and I don't believe anyone outside of his inner circle has the necessary data. My point was simply that there are multiple possible motivations for Trump's actions and thus also multiple possible behaviors should he succeed.

There has always been a substantial number of people who were terrified and/or appalled by every president I can remember (Clinton, Bush, Obama), albeit for very different reasons. Presidential candidates which I find amusing are much more rare.

Some of the things he has said are over the line, but the overall strategy was interesting and quite plausibly more good than bad. Over the past decade or so, government, academia, the media, large scale commercial interests and of course groups custom-made for the purpose have been pushing an expanded definition of what is considered offensive (and thus a reduced range of what may safely be said in public). I was really curious how many people actually agree with this and Trump provided at least part of the answer. Depending on what happens next, he may also have slowed, stopped or perhaps even reversed the recent rise of effective restrictions on speech.

What I'm hearing here is: yes, people are terrified, appalled and angry but my feelings of mild curiosity, amusement and interest are what really matter.

[ThinkerX]

Not sure if the polling agency is reputable, but:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/poll-election-2016-shapes-up-as-a-contest-of-negatives/ar-BBtk16f

 

Quote

Nearly 6 in 10 registered voters say they have negative impressions of both major candidates. Overall, Clinton’s net negative rating among registered voters is minus-16, while Trump’s is minus-17, though Trump’s numbers have improved since March. Among all adults, Trump’s net negatives are significantly higher than those of Clinton.

 

 

Quote

Nonetheless, Clinton is rated ahead of Trump across a range of attributes and issues, and she is seen as having superior experience, temperament and personality to be president. Trump is viewed as unqualified by a majority of adults, but he has strong appeal to voters as the ­anti-Clinton candidate who can bring change to Washington in an election year in which outsiders have thrived.

 

 

Quote

Among those registered voters who say they favor Clinton, 48 percent say their vote is in support of the candidate while an identical percentage say their vote is mainly to oppose Trump. Among Trump’s backers, 44 percent say they are casting an affirmative vote for the Republican, while 53 percent say their motivation is to oppose Clinton.

Support for the two candidates as they begin their direct engagement appears tepid. Less than half of those in Clinton’s column say they strongly support her, while a bare majority say they support her “somewhat.” The numbers for Trump are virtually identical.

Nor are people fully satisfied with their choice of major party nominees — 51 percent call themselves satisfied while 44 percent say they want a third-party option.

 

Article also notes that Sanders is the only remaining candidate with net positives, something supported by the comments.

So, not so much for one candidate, as against the other.  Civil war, anybody?

[Stark Loyal]

4 hours ago, Mexal said:

Trump's connections to the mob. 

Can't trust em.  Politico sound like

a mixture of The Washington Post and The National Enquirer that have been put into a super charged blender set to "liquefy." I find it worrisome that they have more reporters in the West Wing of the White House than any other news source. Further, their compulsion for speed -- getting "news" out there before anyone else -- does not inspire confidence. Accurate news requires research, confirmation and fact checking and that takes time. When speed overrides accuracy, the result is often misinformation, or worse, the repetition of ginned up propaganda.

[The guy from the Vale]

Except that there's no speed in that result. It's been in the open for three decades. Everything is based on actual court records.

[Mr Fixit]

6 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Mr. Fixit,

Then super Puti and his laser nipples can become savior we all know him to be.  

Indeed. I need those laser nipples. I need them hard.

[Stark Loyal]

19 minutes ago, Mr Fixit said:

Indeed. I need those laser nipples. I need them hard.

Nip me!

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

What I'm hearing here is: yes, people are terrified, appalled and angry but my feelings of mild curiosity, amusement and interest are what really matter.

More or less. Some people will always be terrified and/or appalled regardless of the candidates so I don't pay much attention to that. The anger is a large part of what is driving Trump's candidacy.

[Kalbear]

Honestly, the being appalled thing didn't seem to be an issue until Clinton (on the Republican side) and Bush in 2004. Prior to that I knew a whole lot of people who were basically fine with Bush over Gore, because neither were going to do much and both were centrists. Prior to that, a lot of people saw Clinton as largely successful and prosperous and also centrist - only the Rush Limbaughs of the world seemed to hate so heavily, and at the time he wasn't as big a deal as he is now.

I didn't think a whole lot of people hated McCain, though they were terrified of Palin. (with good reason). Romney was viewed not happily either, but there wasn't the terror there like there is now.

No, this election isn't like the others. This is the first election in history where both candidates have net unfavorable status. (I don't want to argue whether it's justified, just that it is that way). This is the first election where both sides are claiming essentially that they cannot under any circumstances let the other person win, no matter how odious you find the existing candidate. This really is an election of firsts, and spinning it as being just the same as before is pretty much the only way you can remotely justify voting for Trump when you would have voted for Sanders.

[ThinkerX]

No, this election isn't like the others. This is the first election in history where both candidates have net unfavorable status. (I don't want to argue whether it's justified, just that it is that way). This is the first election where both sides are claiming essentially that they cannot under any circumstances let the other person win, no matter how odious you find the existing candidate. This really is an election of firsts, and spinning it as being just the same as before is pretty much the only way you can remotely justify voting for Trump when you would have voted for Sanders.

Almost a systemic crisis, in other words.  Pretty much what I have been arguing, though from a slightly different angle.

Making things worse is a looming series of messes - economic, climate, foreign, energy - for which true fixes would be difficult enough under not so strained conditions.