U.S. Elections: American Hitler 2016

[TrackerNeil]

20 minutes ago, MerenthaClone said:

Unless the House gets taken, incremental change is all you'd get in the best of circumstances, though.  

Apparently, all you need is a sufficiently motivated president and REVOLUTION occurs. 

[MerenthaClone]

Just now, TrackerNeil said:

Apparently, all you need is a sufficiently motivated president and REVOLUTION occurs. 

Oh good, I can't wait for the REVOLUTION to take the lives and well-being of the poor while the wealthy either weather it or flee.  That'll show the rich who the...shit.  

[Kalbear]

2 hours ago, The Fallen said:

 

I stated this in an older thread, but it bears repeating. I felt this was a great opportunity, with Bernie as the nominee, to have made great strides against this Republican party and neoliberalism. Instead we settled for incremental change. And this is coming from someone who voted for Bill Clinton both times and for Hillary during her senate run.

Had there been no Bernie or someone similar I would've been fine with Hillary. I'll end by saying that I don't have the same level of trust in Hillary that you guys have.

I'm not saying anything about Clinton one way or another. I'm asking you to look at the Democratic Party points, and tell me what you wanted that you didn't get, other than TPP.

Because that's the thing you were objecting to. 

[Guy Kilmore]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

Apparently, all you need is a sufficiently motivated president and REVOLUTION occurs. 

Like you, the Supreme Court nomination is a big deal for me.  Some of the more liberal policy planks have come about because of direct and indirect support of the Supreme Court. 

[DanteGabriel]

6 hours ago, The Fallen said:

 

I stated this in an older thread, but it bears repeating. I felt this was a great opportunity, with Bernie as the nominee, to have made great strides against this Republican party and neoliberalism. Instead we settled for incremental change. And this is coming from someone who voted for Bill Clinton both times and for Hillary during her senate run.

Had there been no Bernie or someone similar I would've been fine with Hillary. I'll end by saying that I don't have the same level of trust in Hillary that you guys have.

Make great strides against the Republicans in midterm elections. They consistently dominate midterms and thus control Congress because the sort of voters who get so swept up by candidates like Sanders forget that elections happen outside of Presidential campaigns. When progressives turn out in those years, then you'll be able to convince me that a REVOLUTION is possible.

[The Fallen]

4 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

Apparently, all you need is a sufficiently motivated president and REVOLUTION occurs. 

As Sanders himself has said, he's no magician. He would need the American people to pressure politicians. Other progressive polls would have to be elected to Congress. Electing Sanders would have been a start.

Hillary's agenda will also be opposed by Congress. So why not make bigger demands, and if it doesn't work you can always fall back to Hillaryesque moderate policies.

4 hours ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

I'm not saying anything about Clinton one way or another. I'm asking you to look at the Democratic Party points, and tell me what you wanted that you didn't get, other than TPP.

Because that's the thing you were objecting to. 

The other major one would have been Medicare for all. Ultimately, this platform is non-binding, so it doesn't matter what's on there. We won't see what she's really going to do until she actually wins. I just see this as an indication of what's to come. 

17 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

Make great strides against the Republicans in midterm elections. They consistently dominate midterms and thus control Congress because the sort of voters who get so swept up by candidates like Sanders forget that elections happen outside of Presidential campaigns. When progressives turn out in those years, then you'll be able to convince me that a REVOLUTION is possible.

I agree. That's the only way to make change happen. Sadly, most folks give up before they even get started. That's when you hear things like, "I like what Bernie Sanders wants to do. I agree with all his positions. But I'm voting for the other person." But you and Bernie are on the same page, so why would you ... This is how you end up with four more years of Bush.

Anyways, Bernie has lost and has thrown his support to Clinton; no point in going on. Let's see where he goes from here.

[Maithanet]

12 hours ago, The Fallen said:

I'll end by saying that I don't have the same level of trust in Hillary that you guys have.

I've heard a lot of people say this, but let me explain why this doesn't really bother me.

I trust Hillary to be a democrat and a politician.  She has been steadfastly both, at all times, for decades.  I understand the desire for something bigger, more groundbreaking, etc.  But what I don't understand is why so many people who voted for Obama and Kerry (both very much democratic politicians as well) are now so squeamish about the compromises that Hillary made.  I mean, every democratic nominee since Bill has been making similar compromises.  Up through 2004 at least, Democratic voters were very leery of choosing someone too liberal, instead looking for "electability".

If you don't like Hillary, the time to voice it was the primary.  I think that Sanders was actually not as strong a candidate as many of his supporters believe he was, and that a better candidate could have defeated Clinton with a challenge from the left (such as Warren or Brown).  Regardless, that didn't happen.  And now that the choice is between Clinton, Trump or Protest Vote, to me that is no choice at all.  Clinton is WAY closer to Sanders than Trump.  It is virtually impossible to argue otherwise.  There might be individual issues that Clinton lets you down, but what else is new?  I could say that about every president I've ever voted for. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

13 hours ago, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

Nixon never had sex with another human in his entire life, and there is zero proof otherwise.

What are you talking about? Everyone knows that there is irrefutable proof that Raygun took Slippery Dick's V-card beneath the giant owl. 

[Fez]

Some apocalyptic Q-polls of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida came out this morning. Likely gonna dominate the news coverage.

Something is way off in their methodology though. For instance, even if Clinton loses this election, there's not a chance in hell she's only going to get 34% in Pennsylvania.

Like every poll, gotta just throw them into the average; but there's outliers and then there's whatever the hell this is.

[Shryke]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Some apocalyptic Q-polls of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida came out this morning. Likely gonna dominate the news coverage.

Something is way off in their methodology though. For instance, even if Clinton loses this election, there's not a chance in hell she's only going to get 34% in Pennsylvania.

Like every poll, gotta just throw them into the average; but there's outliers and then there's whatever the hell this is.

Some of these polls you see with weird results have absolutely insane cross-tabs and demographic assumptions.

Like, Trump pulling 30% of Hispanics or something. (I remember seeing one like that).

[lokisnow]

1 hour ago, Fez said:

Some apocalyptic Q-polls of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida came out this morning. Likely gonna dominate the news coverage.

Something is way off in their methodology though. For instance, even if Clinton loses this election, there's not a chance in hell she's only going to get 34% in Pennsylvania.

Like every poll, gotta just throw them into the average; but there's outliers and then there's whatever the hell this is.

Probably just a reaction to last weeks bad week for Clinton. It will be worse the week trump gets his convention bounce.

on the other hand, the anti immigrant rhetoric increased turnout of 2.8 million non voters to vote leave without increasing turnout across the board commensurately for remain.  Typically events or issues that increase turnout increase turnout roughly equally without yielding a major advantage, not so for the anti immigrant leave campaign.  so these polls may be reflecting trumps ability to generate a leave esque result here.

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit

 

[Fez]

4 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

Probably just a reaction to last weeks bad week for Clinton. It will be worse the week trump gets his convention bounce.

on the other hand, the anti immigrant rhetoric increased turnout of 2.8 million non voters to vote leave without increasing turnout across the board commensurately for remain.  Typically events or issues that increase turnout increase turnout roughly equally without yielding a major advantage, not so for the anti immigrant leave campaign.  so these polls may be reflecting trumps ability to generate a leave esque result here.

http://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit

 

Doesn't matter. It is literally not possible for Clinton to be 34% in Pennsylvania; that's approaching Idaho/Wyoming/Kansas sort of numbers. Democrats have a registration edge in the state of over 900,000 voters. Some of them are the sort of Democrats who usually vote Republican and a lot of the Indies lean Republican too, which is why both sides have such high floors. In an absolute blowout Trump win, where he's netting 350+ delegates and winning the popular vote by 6% or more, Clinton would still get 45% in Pennsylvania.

[The Marquis de Leech]

On 04/07/2016 at 6:23 PM, Dickwad Poster #3784 said:

 

 

[The Marquis de Leech]

32 minutes ago, Fez said:

Doesn't matter. It is literally not possible for Clinton to be 34% in Pennsylvania; that's approaching Idaho/Wyoming/Kansas sort of numbers. Democrats have a registration edge in the state of over 900,000 voters. Some of them are the sort of Democrats who usually vote Republican and a lot of the Indies lean Republican too, which is why both sides have such high floors. In an absolute blowout Trump win, where he's netting 350+ delegates and winning the popular vote by 6% or more, Clinton would still get 45% in Pennsylvania.

34% would be 1928 levels, back when Pennsylvania was solidly Republican (it also voted for Herbert Hoover in 1932, which is saying something). George McGovern got 39% and Walter Mondale got 46%.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

34% would be 1928 levels, back when Pennsylvania was solidly Republican (it also voted for Herbert Hoover in 1932, which is saying something). George McGovern got 39% and Walter Mondale got 46%.

Yeah. And right on cue, NBC/Marist has a poll out this afternoon of Pennsylvania with Clinton with a 45%-36% lead over Trump, which is more in line with what is to be expected (though Trump will do better than that in the end himself).

[James Arryn]

Poll dancing season really kicking in.

[Altherion]

2 hours ago, Fez said:

Doesn't matter. It is literally not possible for Clinton to be 34% in Pennsylvania; that's approaching Idaho/Wyoming/Kansas sort of numbers. Democrats have a registration edge in the state of over 900,000 voters. Some of them are the sort of Democrats who usually vote Republican and a lot of the Indies lean Republican too, which is why both sides have such high floors. In an absolute blowout Trump win, where he's netting 350+ delegates and winning the popular vote by 6% or more, Clinton would still get 45% in Pennsylvania.

I think "literally not possible" is somewhat of an overstatement. In 2012, the turnout in Pennsylvania was 60% of which Obama got 52% and Romney got 46.6%. What would happen if half of the eligible non-voters go out and vote against the establishment candidate? The turnout goes from 60% to 80% and what used to be 52 out of 100 is now 52 out of 133 or roughly 39%. If in addition Clinton does slightly worse than Obama among the existing voters (as would almost certainly be the case in this scenario), 34% is fairly likely.

Of course, the idea of motivating half of the non-voters to go out and vote against the establishment is not very plausible -- the US has not seen such high turnouts in a Presidential election since the end of the 19th century. However, it is not impossible and is obviously overkill. Trump's best hope is probably to motivate a smaller fraction of the eligible non-voters to vote. He hasn't it so far and it would require a few favorable circumstances, but stranger things have happened.

[Fez]

9 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I think "literally not possible" is somewhat of an overstatement. In 2012, the turnout in Pennsylvania was 60% of which Obama got 52% and Romney got 46.6%. What would happen if half of the eligible non-voters go out and vote against the establishment candidate? The turnout goes from 60% to 80% and what used to be 52 out of 100 is now 52 out of 133 or roughly 39%. If in addition Clinton does slightly worse than Obama among the existing voters (as would almost certainly be the case in this scenario), 34% is fairly likely.

Of course, the idea of motivating half of the non-voters to go out and vote against the establishment is not very plausible -- the US has not seen such high turnouts in a Presidential election since the end of the 19th century. However, it is not impossible and is obviously overkill. Trump's best hope is probably to motivate a smaller fraction of the eligible non-voters to vote. He hasn't it so far and it would require a few favorable circumstances, but stranger things have happened.

I'd say 80% turnout is in fact "literally not possible" for any state that does not have mail-in ballots or that upper midwest tradition of always voting; and even then 75% is usually the upper bounds of what's possible.

Trump could win Pennsylvania, I doubt it, but he could. What he can't do is keep Clinton at 34% in a state with that many registered Democrats.

[James Arryn]

21 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I think "literally not possible" is somewhat of an overstatement. In 2012, the turnout in Pennsylvania was 60% of which Obama got 52% and Romney got 46.6%. What would happen if half of the eligible non-voters go out and vote against the establishment candidate? The turnout goes from 60% to 80% and what used to be 52 out of 100 is now 52 out of 133 or roughly 39%. If in addition Clinton does slightly worse than Obama among the existing voters (as would almost certainly be the case in this scenario), 34% is fairly likely.

Of course, the idea of motivating half of the non-voters to go out and vote against the establishment is not very plausible -- the US has not seen such high turnouts in a Presidential election since the end of the 19th century. However, it is not impossible and is obviously overkill. Trump's best hope is probably to motivate a smaller fraction of the eligible non-voters to vote. He hasn't it so far and it would require a few favorable circumstances, but stranger things have happened.

What if 100% of Democrat voters decided to vote Republican? What then? 

Ie, the first part of this is just rewording 'anything's possible' with arbitrary numbers. Also, I remain a bit mystified why you are so certain non-establishment voters will support the rich white racist/nativist Ivy-league Republican male. Do you mean white anti-establishment males who are at least putting racial equality as a lower priority? 

[A Horse Named Stranger]

18 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

 

A mediocre actor, far from responsible for those atrocities.

 

And he has done his job and unified the pro beef fraction in their mutual disdain for him.

Though in his defense, he was quite good in Life as a House, just his movie choices ever after were horrible.