US Elections - There is 'Ahead in the Polls' behind you

[Shryke]

3 hours ago, Notone said:

She has been rather fortunate that the laws regarding her mails were not any stricter and that the GOP is such a freakshow with Trump as the last clown standing. I am not sure why you were so dismissive about pointing that out.

That the bar for prosecution was not gross negligence looks really like a lucky break for her. And that would not really be an unreasonably low bar. As much as I prefer Clinton over Trump, but the Republicans have a point when they attack her on her e-mails. 

And yes, with a legit opponent and not that dysfunctional mess called the GOP, Clinton would indeed be in trouble. Of course you can simply dismiss both points. But the point is, if the Democrats manage to lose this election they will only have themselves to blame. 

 

And this is the first and biggest problem I was pointing out with your statement. Because no, there's no particular reason why she should consider herself lucky here. Especially given how previous people in the job handled their emails.

The other issue I already covered above. While Trump is almost certainly the easiest chucklefuck she could be facing, the others aren't exactly quality candidates either.

[The Marquis de Leech]

At least one political scientist has divided the Republican primary into four quadrants, reflecting base appeal - Trump (low income/education, socially moderate), Cruz (low income/education, socially conservative), Kasich (high income/education, socially moderate), and Rubio (high income/education, socially conservative).

Without Trump, you have to consider where his flavour of Republican would have ended up. Logically, Kasich (or Bush) would try to appeal to the fact that these people really don't care about the agenda of the Religious Right. Cruz would try to appeal to their hostility to the perceived Establishment. I think, on balance, Cruz is more likely to come out ahead.

Cruz vs Clinton would still have Clinton ahead. Cruz's floor would be higher than Trump's, but his ceiling would be lower too.

The funny thing is that (all things being equal) we might indeed see Cruz vs Clinton in 2020 (of course Trump lost - he wasn't conservative enough!), meaning it might take until at least 2024 before the Republican Party management regains control of the lunatic asylum.  

[The Anti-Targ]

4 hours ago, ummester said:

That's kind of the obvious result of the media and a vocal minority Trump shaming though. And the more the media and that vocal minority shame, the more it will turn into Trump support - ie people will vote for Trump because they dislike the self righteous anti Trump bandwagon.

That makes absolutely no sense. If you dislike Trump you are not going to vote for him just because the other side BMs him or tries to sit on a high horse. You're either going to reluctantly vote for Hillary, vote for a 3rd party or just not vote. None of which amounts to Trump support. If you're vaguely sympathetic towards Trump and his policies du jour then your are likely to vote for him anyway.

But you seem to be of the view that Trump is one of (or all 4) the horsemen of the apocalypse and he will bring about the collapse of the neoliberal capitalism and 2 party democracy. Which means you think a majority of voters in the USA are self-destructively crazy, or drooling imbeciles, which if that was the case then maybe this idea that talking bad about Trump = increased support for Trump could be right.

[The Anti-Targ]

2 hours ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

At least one political scientist has divided the Republican primary into four quadrants, reflecting base appeal - Trump (low income/education, socially moderate), Cruz (low income/education, socially conservative), Kasich (high income/education, socially moderate), and Rubio (high income/education, socially conservative).

Without Trump, you have to consider where his flavour of Republican would have ended up. Logically, Kasich (or Bush) would try to appeal to the fact that these people really don't care about the agenda of the Religious Right. Cruz would try to appeal to their hostility to the perceived Establishment. I think, on balance, Cruz is more likely to come out ahead.

Cruz vs Clinton would still have Clinton ahead. Cruz's floor would be higher than Trump's, but his ceiling would be lower too.

The funny thing is that (all things being equal) we might indeed see Cruz vs Clinton in 2020 (of course Trump lost - he wasn't conservative enough!), meaning it might take until at least 2024 before the Republican Party management regains control of the lunatic asylum.  

Is that true though? It might have been true once, a few years ago. But Trump definitely pivoted to social conservatism. I think Kasich had the social moderates of all educational / income levels in his corner, which merely shows how few social moderates there are left in the Republican party.

[all swedes are racist]

13 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Is that true though? It might have been true once, a few years ago. But Trump definitely pivoted to social conservatism. I think Kasich had the social moderates of all educational / income levels in his corner, which merely shows how few social moderates there are left in the Republican party.

Yeah, toud think so, but (admittedly, anecdotally)  I know/ have seen a lot of what I'd think of as moderate to libertarian leaning conservatives come out in favor of trump. Might not be a yuge segment, be he has a not insignificant portion of middle to upper-middle-class yahoos on his corner

[The Marquis de Leech]

Your average Trump supporter really doesn't care about religion, gay marriage or abortion (recall Trump screwing up when he tried to take a Pro Life stance, but not losing support). That's pretty much the test of moderate vs conservative in the modern Republican Party. They absolutely hate the Other, of course, and are angry at a changing world, but they lack the theocratic dream of Cruz. 

[The Anti-Targ]

Oh, so what you mean is moderate, for a Republican, not moderate in an over all sense.

[ThinkerX]

No definitive articles yet, hence no links...

 

...but in the comments to various political articles, I am seeing more and more posts, not just from Conservatives, that Clinton is looking really seriously exhausted or sick.  'Brittle' was the word a few of these folks used.  'Barely able to walk' also got mentioned a couple times.  Anybody else notice this?

 

If true, especially in light of her age and the odd past report that Clinton has had occasional medical 'episodes' (didn't she faint/collapse a few years ago?) I have to wonder if Clinton would survive a full four year term. 

[MerenthaClone]

4 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

No definitive articles yet, hence no links...

 

...but in the comments to various political articles, I am seeing more and more posts, not just from Conservatives, that Clinton is looking really seriously exhausted or sick.  'Brittle' was the word a few of these folks used.  'Barely able to walk' also got mentioned a couple times.  Anybody else notice this?

 

If true, especially in light of her age and the odd past report that Clinton has had occasional medical 'episodes' (didn't she faint/collapse a few years ago?) I have to wonder if Clinton would survive a full four year term. 

This is a pretty coordinated plan by some RWM groups.  They've been running a ton of articles about how she stumbled once walking off a stage, "needs pillows" to be propped up, and other crap.  Its meaningless.  By all accounts she's pretty healthy, and she certainly doesn't look exhausted or sick to me.   

[lokisnow]

57 minutes ago, ThinkerX said:

No definitive articles yet, hence no links...

 

...but in the comments to various political articles, I am seeing more and more posts, not just from Conservatives, that Clinton is looking really seriously exhausted or sick.  'Brittle' was the word a few of these folks used.  'Barely able to walk' also got mentioned a couple times.  Anybody else notice this?

 

If true, especially in light of her age and the odd past report that Clinton has had occasional medical 'episodes' (didn't she faint/collapse a few years ago?) I have to wonder if Clinton would survive a full four year term. 

It's mainstream not restricted to comments, and it is just garbage. McCain is still alive, dole is still alive, bush sr is still alive, carter is still alive, Reagan and ford lived to their nineties. By and large, if you are rich and white and old and alive right now, you have a great chance at longevity with the modern medicine you can access!

see also http://www.vox.com/2016/8/18/12505078/hillary-clinton-health-stroke-conspiracy-fake

[Martell Spy]

Colbert on Clinton health rumor mill: Giuliani is “a man with his head up his own a**”
"It's an endless loop," he added. "It's like a snake with its tail in its mouth." 

http://www.salon.com/2016/08/24/colbert-on-clinton-health-rumor-mill-giuliani-is-a-man-with-his-head-up-his-own-a/

[mormont]

4 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

No definitive articles yet, hence no links...

 

...but in the comments to various political articles, I am seeing more and more posts, not just from Conservatives, that Clinton is looking really seriously exhausted or sick.  'Brittle' was the word a few of these folks used.  'Barely able to walk' also got mentioned a couple times.  Anybody else notice this?

 

If true, especially in light of her age and the odd past report that Clinton has had occasional medical 'episodes' (didn't she faint/collapse a few years ago?) I have to wonder if Clinton would survive a full four year term. 

Maybe she should go see Dr Bornstein. I hear he's great.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

14 hours ago, ummester said:

That's kind of the obvious result of the media and a vocal minority Trump shaming though. And the more the media and that vocal minority shame, the more it will turn into Trump support - ie people will vote for Trump because they dislike the self righteous anti Trump bandwagon.

No, it won't. You really need to get a reality check. 

13 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Look, OK? It's what they're not saying that tells you, ok? I mean, c'mon. Really? Like you can call somebody in the middle of the night- RING RING!!!! And what do you think they're gonna say? What do you think that person who's telling lies! That people are gonna feel comfortable there when crooked Hillary and Obama are on the phone lines? It's fine, I mean it's fine! I understand but look at all the people here I mean really and you think it's not rigged? We're gonna figure it out I mean that's what I'm hearing ok? Trust me, I've been around ok? We're gonna go get the jobs and bring them back... OK, who's that guy? Who's this guy? Can we get him out of here? I mean c'mon... everyone else give him a hand, maybe we'll see you in the parking lot ok? I mean boy, when I tell ya how it used to be, maybe my second amendment people can help this guy get it outside.

Hahaha. You've been on fire Jace. 

[Weeping Sore]

Floating the health scare thing seems like a pretty desperate ploy. I'd much rather have Tim Kaine than Trump or Pence running things, regardless.

In terms of actual voting, I've decided to throw my NY vote away on Jill Stein because there is zero danger of Hill losing the state's 29 electoral votes. Non-negligible Stein support could signal to the Clinton administration that there is a risk in tacking too far to the right. If I were in a more closely contested state (which would be what, Missouri? Georgia? at this point) I would vote for Hillary.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

No definitive articles yet, hence no links...

 

...but in the comments to various political articles, I am seeing more and more posts, not just from Conservatives, that Clinton is looking really seriously exhausted or sick.  'Brittle' was the word a few of these folks used.  'Barely able to walk' also got mentioned a couple times.  Anybody else notice this?

 

So in other words, people with uninformed opinions are spouting nonsense. 

7 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

If true, especially in light of her age and the odd past report that Clinton has had occasional medical 'episodes' (didn't she faint/collapse a few years ago?) I have to wonder if Clinton would survive a full four year term. 

Trump is older and would be the oldest person to ever become president. And as of late, he's been projecting every negative thing about him as an attack on Clinton (as an example, he's lately taken to calling Hillary a bigot), so Imo it's fair to suspect that his own health may be in question.

[BloodRider]

On 8/23/2016 at 11:40 AM, ummester said:

Pretty much, though burn the government to ground is harsh.  The government has sold out, it's already locked in a relationship with the big financial players that it can't break without breaking itself. Don't worry, although I don't think it's quite as far along, mine's half sold out also. What needs to happen is for the relationship between governments, corporations and the financial sector to be collapsed, so a new relationship can be initiated -  the government itself doesn't have to collapse but it's a little delicate to accomplish otherwise now - like separating Siamese twins.

How naieve do you have to be to think that after the burning and the chaos is over that anyone different will have a seat at the table.  We know for sure that after such chaos people hew to institutions - not eschew them.  All that chaos would do is cement the govt-corp power hegemony for years.  Think the 50s after the chaos of WWII.  

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

21 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Trump is older and would be the oldest person to ever become president. And as of late, he's been projecting every negative thing about him as an attack on Clinton (as an example, he's lately taken to calling Hillary a bigot), so Imo it's fair to suspect that his own health may be in question.

This is a dirty, unfair and scurrilous attack on Trump. I have it on good authority that Donald Trump has never had any significant medical problems, that is laboratory test results are "astonishingly excellent" and that if he's excellent president, he will unequivocally be the "healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency." So please stop spreading this dirty misinformation. 

[sologdin]

is it normal to fly in rightwing populist endorsers from other places?

[Morpheus]

No definitive articles

 

but i hear Donald Trump supports NAMBLA. People are saying this. That's what I hear. Yuge if true, yuuuge. Sad.

[mormont]

18 minutes ago, sologdin said:

is it normal to fly in rightwing populist endorsers from other places?

Well, he and Donald do have a lot in common.

For a start, they're both strongly against (brown) immigration though they both happen to be married to (white) foreigners, but they both react angrily if you suggest they might be even the tiniest bit racist.

For a second, they both firmly believe they're anti-establishment rebels despite being wealthy old white guys with the most establishment jobs and personal histories imaginable.

And they're both vastly overestimating Farage's role in the Brexit vote, of course.