U.S. Elections 2016: It's Not A Lie, If YOU Believe It

[Ice Queen]

On 9/13/2016 at 0:09 PM, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

As Ormond pointed out the problem isn't people who "support Trump".  It is people who with reluctance support Sec. Clinton.  Could such an action push down turnout for people who might vote for Sec. Clinton?  It's not the enthusiastic you should be worried about, but the lukewarm.

 

I've never gotten the hang of this multi-quote thing, so pardon me if I screw it up.

I don't see why that would be an issue. If they're lukewarm, then they're too smart to think that a bout of pneumonia is the end of the world and makes her unfit. Anyone can get pneumonia--with as many hands as they have to shake (except Trump, of course, being a germophobe), babies to kiss, etc. they're probably carrying around boxes of drugs for every occasion. 

 

On 9/13/2016 at 0:15 PM, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I agree with your point regarding saying "no comment", but their obfuscation did give the impression that they had something to hide. Hell, it's not even an impression at this point, that's clearly what they were doing. Had they just come out initially and revealed the diagnosis there wouldn't be any reasonable controversy. By obfuscating they lent credence to the health conspiracy.

Let's be real. If they'd come straight out and said she was sick, it would have been an uproar anyway. It's like they don't remember Pappy Bush throwing up on the Japanese PM because he had the flu. 

Even presidents get sick. It's that simple. And women more than men do tend to just power through it. You don't have a choice. 

23 hours ago, Notone said:

The problem with that approach is, it will keep that non-issue in the news. "How sick is she really?" "What is she hiding?" etc.

What did it get Obama to release his birth certificate? He further marginalized that birther movement, and exposed it as what it was. A loony conspiracy theory driven by a racist agenda. And he at least did not need to waste any energy on that issue during his campaign against Romney.

The health part is a bit trickier though. You can hardly call criticism over a candidate's refusal to release her health record sexist. Well, obviously you can, but it does not fly imo, since a candidates health is hardly a womens' issue. What else can you call that. An ageist. It somewhat is, but age and health are somewhat related. So what's political gain for Clinton to not go public with her health record? She would somewhat lose the morale highground, when she points out that Trump has not released his tax returns. And never will. So I can see like zero upside for her.

Whether the Trumpers want to admit it or not, their demand that she release her medical information is sexist. They're just itching for some evidence, however slim, that a woman doesn't have the stamina of a man and therefore can't possibly be president. That's where this is coming from. It's exactly the same strategy the birthers used to hide their racism. 

If they want to see her gyne records, that's on them.

If Trump, who's done more to bring the worst qualities in Americans to the forefront with the birther movement, can become a nominee for POTUS, then obviously that crowd wasn't marginalized at all. It's now legitimized and mainstream. 

Hillary was too nice when she said that only half of them were deplorable, IMO. 

23 hours ago, Swordfish said:

 

Yep.  Couple huge blunders by the Hilary campaign.  She does seem to have a knack for doing everything she can to try and snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

I don't think the 'No, YOU ARE!' approach is going to work for her very well, given how poorly she's already perceived by the majority of americans.

She pretty much gave up a lot of her right to privacy when she was shoehorned into the nomination the DNC.

 

So did Trump. So where are his tax returns? You guys should spend as much time and energy demanding those instead of private medical information that's no one's business except hers and her doctor's. Not even Bill has the right to know if she doesn't want to tell him. 

[Mudguard]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

Nobody denies that there are Democrats who hold bigoted views. The difference is that Democratic leaders chastise these people while Republican leaders court them. Clinton is calling bigots deplorables while Trump and Pence are calling bigots proud Americans. The difference cannot be more stark. 

I don't recall Clinton ever acknowledging that 1/3 of her own supporters are deplorable bigots, racists, and sexists.

 If Clinton has about 45% of the vote and a third are bigots while Trump has 40% of the vote with half bigots, then about 40% of the bigots vote Clinton and 60% vote Trump, with the bigot vote accounting for 35% of the electorate.

Clinton would be losing big without her share of the bigot voting block.  No way will she call 1/3 of her own voters deplorables and reject their support.

[IheartIheartTesla]

Looks like Colin Powell's e-mail was hacked, where he had unflattering things to say about HRC and even more (much more) unflattering things to say about Trump.

[DireWolfSpirit]

According to Bloomberg, Ohio is definately in play and up for grabs. http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/14/politics/bloomberg-poll-donald-trump-leads-hillary-clinton-ohio/index.html

Hillary at only 39% with Buckeye voters. One has to wonder how bad Trumps lead might be without the Libertarian on the ballot? Johnson is pulling 10%, a 10% that potentially would vote for a normal R candidate in a different cycle. The Green candidate Stein only at 3% a far smaller influence on this poll.

On another front, i'm excited to see NY (D) Nadler and the NY Attorney Gen. investigating Trumps scam charity. Nadler's a pitbull and certainly down for a fight with Le Donald. We will see some upturned dirt soon on this front is my bet.

[Altherion]

7 hours ago, Guess who's back said:

So after the new DNC leak you guys still support crooked Hillary? lmao @ buying political appointments. 

Have they found anything interesting in there yet? I don't see much of it in the mainstream media at all and on the sites that do have it, they're mainly focusing on the donor information. It's nice to have this (for future reference, if nothing else), but I'm not sure what impact it will have: everybody already knew that ambassadorships were for sale (though of course it's good to know what the current going price is).

[Tijgy]

1 hour ago, Altherion said:

Have they found anything interesting in there yet? I don't see much of it in the mainstream media at all and on the sites that do have it, they're mainly focusing on the donor information. It's nice to have this (for future reference, if nothing else), but I'm not sure what impact it will have: everybody already knew that ambassadorships were for sale (though of course it's good to know what the current going price is).

There is a leaked mail from the DNC: "We have been compromised. Don't worry. Here is our new password".  

 

[Mexal]

2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

According to Bloomberg, Ohio is definately in play and up for grabs. http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/14/politics/bloomberg-poll-donald-trump-leads-hillary-clinton-ohio/index.html

Hillary at only 39% with Buckeye voters. One has to wonder how bad Trumps lead might be without the Libertarian on the ballot? Johnson is pulling 10%, a 10% that potentially would vote for a normal R candidate in a different cycle. The Green candidate Stein only at 3% a far smaller influence on this poll.

On another front, i'm excited to see NY (D) Nadler and the NY Attorney Gen. investigating Trumps scam charity. Nadler's a pitbull and certainly down for a fight with Le Donald. We will see some upturned dirt soon on this front is my bet.

Fairly sure the third party candidates are taking from Clinton because they're getting a high proportion of the 18-34 voters. If you look at Hillary v Trump head to head, she holds a lead but when you add Stein/Johnson, her lead drops by a lot, if not all together. Not sure it'll hold up come election time but it's certainly there in the polls now.

[BloodRider]

4 hours ago, Mudguard said:

I don't recall Clinton ever acknowledging that 1/3 of her own supporters are deplorable bigots, racists, and sexists.

 If Clinton has about 45% of the vote and a third are bigots while Trump has 40% of the vote with half bigots, then about 40% of the bigots vote Clinton and 60% vote Trump, with the bigot vote accounting for 35% of the electorate.

Clinton would be losing big without her share of the bigot voting block.  No way will she call 1/3 of her own voters deplorables and reject their support.

I don't recall Clinton actively courting that 1/3 demographic with targeted language and policy discussion.  There is a difference.

[Jaxom 1974]

52 minutes ago, Mexal said:

Fairly sure the third party candidates are taking from Clinton because they're getting a high proportion of the 18-34 voters. If you look at Hillary v Trump head to head, she holds a lead but when you add Stein/Johnson, her lead drops by a lot, if not all together. Not sure it'll hold up come election time but it's certainly there in the polls now.

Far too many of my friends in Ohio are inexplicably Johnson supporters...seemingly because they have either bought into the narrative that Hillary is "evil" and/or that Johnson will not let anyone take their guns...

[Mudguard]

27 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

I don't recall Clinton actively courting that 1/3 demographic with targeted language and policy discussion.  There is a difference.

Yeah, there does seem to be a difference.  The bigots voting for Clinton appear to be getting a pass from Clinton while the bigots voting for Trump get called out.  I'll give her huge props if she's willing to call 1/3 of her supporters deplorable bigots/racists/sexists, but I doubt that will happen.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

3 hours ago, Mudguard said:

I don't recall Clinton ever acknowledging that 1/3 of her own supporters are deplorable bigots, racists, and sexists.

Well that's because there isn't any data to suggest that's true. The poll you're referencing isn't studying racism as much as it's studying stereotyping. It's pretty well documented at this point that all ethnic groups apply a disproportional amount of negative traits to African Americans (that includes African Americans themselves.) Here is a excellent article on the topic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/black-on-black-racism-the-hazards-of-implicit-bias/384028/

It really isn't a great way to measure a person's level of bigotry. Many people, including the author who is himself an African American, are horrified when they see their results, because these studies often get at a person's subconscious biases rather than their active beliefs. A much better indicator are the polling results that show that a majority of Trump supporters believe that President Obama is a Muslim, that he wasn't born in America and that we should have a ban on all Muslims coming into America. That's just outright bigotry.

It's also worth noting that you're drawing your conclusion on the single worst thing you could find about Clinton's supporters. If we applied that to Trump, we could go as far as saying that 76% of Trump's supporters are bigots. 

[The Mance]

7 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

The bigots voting for Clinton appear to be getting a pass from Clinton while the bigots voting for Trump get called out.

Maybe because Clinton's bigots aren't trying to inflict their bigotry on the rest of the country by voting a bigot into office?

[Fez]

CNN has new polls showing Trump up in Ohio and Florida. Bloomberg has Trump up in Ohio, as mentioned. Monmouth has Trump up in Nevada. And a couple polls are showing Maine close, with Trump actually winning the 2nd district delegate.

Meanwhile, pretty much all the national polls are showing a 1 or 2 point Clinton lead in the four-way (which isn't super useful, since Stein isn't on all 50 state ballots).

Things have gotten real tight. Maybe. The thing these polls all have in common is that think the electorate will look like it did in 2004. If it looks like it did in 2012, the race looks very different. But we don't know yet which electorate will show; clearly the pollsters think that 2008 and 2012 was an Obama coalition, not a Democratic coalition.

Also hurting, the polls have the combined Johnson/Stein vote among 18-34 year olds bigger than Clinton's vote share. That's sinking her right now.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

I can't believe we chose the one candidate who could actually lose to Trump.

though I'm not convinced Bernie would have done that much better. Socialist is still a dirty word in a lot of America. Though that assessment may be colored by the fact that I mostly prefer Clinton policy-wise.

I don't really know what to think.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

I can't believe we chose the one candidate who could actually lose to Trump.

though I'm not convinced Bernie would have done that much better. Socialist is still a dirty word in a lot of America. Though that assessment may be colored by the fact that I mostly prefer Clinton policy-wise.

I don't really know what to think.

It's really unclear where Sanders would be here. I like to think he'd be more 'liked' in general - both because he's a more friendly guy, and because he's not a woman - but when he got negative towards the end that started dropping quite a bit. I also think that his numbers with nonwhites would be significantly worse and pretty disappointed. 

[TerraPrime]

4 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

I can't believe we chose the one candidate who could actually lose to Trump.

though I'm not convinced Bernie would have done that much better. Socialist is still a dirty word in a lot of America. Though that assessment may be colored by the fact that I mostly prefer Clinton policy-wise.

I don't really know what to think.

What makes you think she could lose to Trump?

[Mudguard]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Well that's because there isn't any data to suggest that's true. The poll you're referencing isn't studying racism as much as it's studying stereotyping. It's pretty well documented at this point that all ethnic groups apply a disproportional amount of negative traits to African Americans (that includes African Americans themselves.) Here is a excellent article on the topic:

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/12/black-on-black-racism-the-hazards-of-implicit-bias/384028/

It really isn't a great way to measure a person's level of bigotry. Many people, including the author who is himself an African American, are horrified when they see their results, because these studies often get at a person's subconscious biases rather than their active beliefs. A much better indicator are the polling results that show that a majority of Trump supporters believe that President Obama is a Muslim, that he wasn't born in America and that we should have a ban on all Muslims coming into America. That's just outright bigotry.

It's also worth noting that you're drawing your conclusion on the single worst thing you could find about Clinton's supporters. If we applied that to Trump, we could go as far as saying that 76% of Trump's supporters are bigots. 

You're selectively dismissing evidence that you don't like. I have no idea why you think a question about whether one believes Obama is a Muslim a better indicator of racism and bigotry that asking questions like are blacks less intelligent than whites, are blacks more lazy than whites, are blacks more violent than whites, are blacks more criminal than whites?  These questions are way more relevant to me when assessing racism than a persons opinion on Obama's religion.

[The guy from the Vale]

5 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

What makes you think she could lose to Trump?

The fact that her polling isn't all that great at this point in time? Most poll aggregators still have her as the favorite, but she's gone down from a ~85% chance of winning after the conventions to a ~65% chance of winning. That's not all that a convincing position to be in.

[Mudguard]

20 minutes ago, The Mance said:

Maybe because Clinton's bigots aren't trying to inflict their bigotry on the rest of the country by voting a bigot into office?

So that makes Clinton's bigots OK in your view?  No need to address the deplorable bigots that make up 1/3 of her support?  I have to admit that I was surprised that the number of Clinton bigots was this high.  If the number was something like 5%, I'd give her a pass, but 1/3 is a huge number and indicates that it's not just a problem with Republicans.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

19 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

What makes you think she could lose to Trump?

The polls.