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

[The Mance]

30 minutes ago, Mudguard said:

So that makes Clinton's bigots OK in your view?

People are allowed to be bigots.  I wish they weren't bigots, but as long as they are willing to keep the effects of their bigotry within the bounds of the Constitution and our anti-discrimination legislation, then I have less of a problem with them than I do with those bigots who want to undue decades of civil rights progress.

So, ya, if a bigot wants to vote for Clinton because of her fiscal policy, or because they are worried about the environment, or want to see their kids afford a college education, I welcome their vote.  It doesn't make their bigotry "OK", by any means, but at least it isn't driving their political philosophy to the detriment of all other consideration.

[TerraPrime]

27 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

The polls.

 

Which ones? All the polls?

What position was Obama in at this point in time in 2008?

Also, are you aware that the Trump campaign has 2 field office in the entire state of Florida for getting out the vote, as opposed to the 32 (iirc) from Clinton? That story is repeated in all the battleground states. Clinton outnumbers Trump on field office by the hundreds across the country.

 

 

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, TerraPrime said:

 

Which ones? All the polls?

What position was Obama in at this point in time in 2008?

Also, are you aware that the Trump campaign has 2 field office in the entire state of Florida for getting out the vote, as opposed to the 32 (iirc) from Clinton? That story is repeated in all the battleground states. Clinton outnumbers Trump on field office by the hundreds across the country.

 

 

It's a bit weird to say because the conventions were much later in that year, but Obama stayed at about +5 before and after the conventions. Clinton's at +3/4 right now. Closer to Romney/Obama. 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

39 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

 

Which ones? All the polls?

What position was Obama in at this point in time in 2008?

Also, are you aware that the Trump campaign has 2 field office in the entire state of Florida for getting out the vote, as opposed to the 32 (iirc) from Clinton? That story is repeated in all the battleground states. Clinton outnumbers Trump on field office by the hundreds across the country.

 

 

No, but the question is could Trump win.

I mean good for you that your so confident. Maybe polls are overestimating Trump because of his lack of ground game. I guess we'll find out this election how much all of that really matter in Presidential elections.

But I still feel like we're playing Russian Roulette with 2 out of 5 bullets.

[TerraPrime]

Well, whatever.

I just get tired of the constant take down of Hillary even from her alleged supporters.

 

She's corrupt! She's in the back pocket of big banks! She's racist! She dresses horribly! She's a weak candidate! She can't even beat Trump! She should have been more honest with her pneumonia!

 

Blah.

[Altherion]

52 minutes ago, White Walker Texas Ranger said:

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

One of the more amusing things about a Trump victory would be the reaction of everyone who went with the establishment candidate over Sanders. I don't know what exactly they would say, but I'm sure it would be entertaining.

That said, I don't think these polls offer much definitive information. It's true that Trump has mostly erased Clinton's large post-convention lead, but he has been in this polling territory before. Based on previous results, what will likely happen next is that either Trump says something more offensive than usual or Clinton's allies dig up something about his foundation/university/whatever, thus bringing the polls back to where they were a couple of weeks ago. What Trump needs right now is either more bad news on Clinton's side or to decisively win the debate.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

39 minutes ago, TerraPrime said:

Well, whatever.

I just get tired of the constant take down of Hillary even from her alleged supporters.

 

She's corrupt! She's in the back pocket of big banks! She's racist! She dresses horribly! She's a weak candidate! She can't even beat Trump! She should have been more honest with her pneumonia!

 

Blah.

I think it's fair to say that many of her "supporters" are lukewarm on her at best (me included). Far and away my greatest motivator in voting for her is to prevent a Trump presidency. That's pretty much it.  

 

 

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

6 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I think it's fair to say that many of her "supporters" are lukewarm on her at best (me included). Far and away my greatest motivator in voting for her is to prevent a Trump presidency. That's pretty much it.  

I actually think she'd make a good president. But she's a bad candidate.

Though that's assuming she can get through whatever bullshit investigations the Republican congress throws her way. 99% of of it will be bullshit, but she does just enough shady shit that 1% may stick.

[Altherion]

I'm looking through the Colin Powell email story. There are some fairly critical (and also funny) comments about both Trump and Clinton (CNN, The Intercept):

Quote

"Trump is a national disgrace and an international pariah," Powell wrote in June.

"He appeals to the worst angels of the GOP nature and poor white folks," Powell wrote in another email.

...

But the messages also showed Powell angry with Hillary Clinton over her handling of her personal emails as secretary of state.

As The Intercept reported, Powell wrote in 2015, "Everything HRC touches she kind of screws up with hubris."

There's also one about Clinton which is not related to the election, but quite funny:

Quote

 

Powell added in a tangential complaint: “I told you about the gig I lost at a University because she so overcharged them they came under heat and couldn’t any [sic] fees for awhile. I should send her a bill.”

 

 

[Mudguard]

27 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

I think it's fair to say that many of her "supporters" are lukewarm on her at best (me included). Far and away my greatest motivator in voting for her is to prevent a Trump presidency. That's pretty much it.  

I'm pretty much the same.  I voted for Sander's in the primary, and I'm only grudgingly voting for Clinton in the general.  But just because I'm going to vote for Clinton in the general, doesn't mean that I'm going turn into a Clinton apologist/defender or that I'm going to stop criticizing her.

[DanteGabriel]

I'm lukewarm on Clinton and I think she's too secretive and makes a lot of unforced errors. But I still think she's been unfairly persecuted by the Republican scandal machine and that she's running this race in ten pound shoes because of pervasive sexism. And the liberal media us handling this shit ridiculously unfairly, especially the shitheel at the New York Times.

[Swordfish]

22 hours ago, The Mance said:

 

 

 

8 hours ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

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. 

 

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. 

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. 

So did Trump. So where are his tax returns? You guys should spend as much time and energy demanding those

 

This 'yeah but what about Trumo!!!!' stuff is so silly, lazy, intellectually dishonest,  and tiresome.  Especially since I've already directly addressed it, as have other posters.

I have no idea why anyone thinks this is a legitimate response to criticisms of HRC but spoiler alert:  It isn't.

Quote

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. 

Interestingly enough, Bill himself disagrees with you:

 

Quote

Bill Clinton told Altman he didn’t think of the interview as an invasion of privacy. “The public has a right to know the condition of the president’s health.”

 

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/439936/bill-clinton-1996-public-has-right-know-condition-presidents-health

[Swordfish]

39 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I'm looking through the Colin Powell email story. There are some fairly critical (and also funny) comments about both Trump and Clinton (CNN, The Intercept):

There's also one about Clinton which is not related to the election, but quite funny:

 

 

I'm sure Colin Powell has just been unduly influenced by fox news and republican smear stories.  Nothing to see here.

 

Also, WHAT ABOUT TRUMPS HUBRIS??!?  HUh?  HUUH??!?!?!?!?!

[Altherion]

4 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

Also, are you aware that the Trump campaign has 2 field office in the entire state of Florida for getting out the vote, as opposed to the 32 (iirc) from Clinton? That story is repeated in all the battleground states. Clinton outnumbers Trump on field office by the hundreds across the country.

Don't worry, the Koch brothers have this covered. Of course, their goal is to help Republican Congressmen, but they'll be drawing out Republicans nonetheless.

Also, I'm not entirely sure how relevant these field offices are. By traditional measures such as the ground game or campaign funding in general (Clinton has literally 3 times as much money), she should be winning by a substantial margin... but this does not appear to be the case. It might be that the techniques the money is being spent on have outlasted their usefulness.

[The Anti-Targ]

3 hours ago, Swordfish said:

 

 

This 'yeah but what about Trumo!!!!' stuff is so silly, lazy, intellectually dishonest,  and tiresome.  Especially since I've already directly addressed it, as have other posters.

I have no idea why anyone thinks this is a legitimate response to criticisms of HRC but spoiler alert:  It isn't.

Interestingly enough, Bill himself disagrees with you:

 

 

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/439936/bill-clinton-1996-public-has-right-know-condition-presidents-health

She ain't president yet. So what Bill said in 1996 isn't relevant until January 2017.

 

And @ bold why do you say that? If people are going to throw up negatives about a candidate and claim unsuitability for the office of president, then surely it is legitimate to say, "but what about Trump? He's worse."

This is a two horse race and it is legitimate to compare the two side by side on issues of dishonesty and lack of integrity. While "lesser of two evils" is a spurious basis for making an overall argument, it is legit when considering the balance of the negative personal traits of each candidate. You are not assessing Hillary's personality in isolation here, everything beinbg assessed about Hillary is relative to Trump.

Even for those who are lukewarm. There has to be a point at which your lukewarmness turns into a complete chill and you back out of the election, or go 3rd party, because both are as bad as each other in your estimation. But that is still a relative assessment. If on balance one thinks Hillary is significantly less shitty on these honesty issues than Trump, the lukewarm decision to vote for her remains valid. People point out some new shittiness on the part of Hillary, the same assessment process should be followed. Does that equalise her with Trump? If yes, rethink your voting preference, if no, status quo remains.

In a thread that is specifically debating the presidential election, it is therefore completely logical for Hillary supporters to keep reminding people of the greater depths of shittiness of Trump in order to keep the lukewarm lukewarm and to prevent a chill from setting in.

It's not logical or effective if one is trying to sway a Trump voter away from Triump.

[mormont]

7 hours ago, Swordfish said:

I have no idea why anyone thinks this is a legitimate response to criticisms of HRC but spoiler alert:  It isn't.

Spoiler alert: there are precisely two candidates in this election who can win and spoiler alert: it is completely reasonable to compare the two. Spoiler alert: it is therefore legitimate to respond to criticisms of candidate A by pointing out that candidate B is weaker in that respect, since the choice is between candidate A and candidate B.

Also, spoiler alert: randomly putting 'spoiler alert' into sentences that have nothing to do with spoilers is so 2015.

[Martell Spy]

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/10/who-will-win/497561/

When Donald Meets Hillary
Who will win the debates? Trump’s approach was an important part of his strength in the primaries. But will it work when he faces Clinton onstage?

[Fez]

Its not a takedown of Clinton to say that the race has gotten very close over the past few weeks, and may be close to a 50-50 proposition at this point. There have been polls now showing Trump leading in almost all of the swing states. There are also polls showing Clinton leading as well, but most of those are older polls. It does appear that Clinton still has an electoral majority through CO, NH, PA, VA; but there's no margin for error if Trump wins the rest of them. I'm not saying Trump will win all of FL, IA, OH, NC, NV but he has lead in some of the polls of all of them and it has to be acknowledged that he very well could (Personally, if the election was held today, I think he'd win IA and OH, Clinton would still win NC and NV and FL could go either way).

At the same time though, polls do still show Trump badly underperforming in red states. There was another one today showing him +7 with likely voters in Texas and only +1 with registered voters. If we're going to pay attention to the blue state and swing state polls, we have to pay attention to the red state ones too. The map looks like it could be different enough this time that a lot of states could go in unexpected ways even if the national margin is within a couple points.

And it looks like it will be within a couple points. The NYT/CBS poll now has Clinton-Trump tied at 42% in the 4-way race (Clinton leads 46-44 in the 2-way). So far in September there's only been 3 national polls showing a Trump lead (one being that crazy LA Times tracker), but of all the ones showing a Clinton lead only 2 of them having that lead being more than 2 points. 

There's two reasons its so close. One is that a lot of the pollsters think turnout will look closer to 2004; which is an assumption and their part and could easily be wrong. And one way to tell that they might be is if the Clinton campaign continues to focus on states like Arizona and Georgia instead of shoring up states that public polling is claiming are tossups again. The other is that way too many young voters are going 3rd party right now; most polls have Clinton leading Trump by only single digits in the 18-34 age range because so many of them are Johnson or Stein supporters. Maybe some of them go back to Clinton now that a Trump victory looks so much more likely. But its a real problem, and one the Clinton campaign needs to address.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Note that Hillary only needs the 2004 Kerry States, plus Virginia and Colorado (neither of which appear to be inclined to vote for Trump). So Romney 2012 + Ohio + Florida + Iowa + Nevada + ME-2 isn't enough for Donald. He needs either Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, or New Hampshire.

The Blue Wall will hold, I think.

[TrackerNeil]

12 hours ago, TerraPrime said:

She's corrupt! She's in the back pocket of big banks! She's racist! She dresses horribly! She's a weak candidate! She can't even beat Trump! She should have been more honest with her pneumonia!

Blah.

If I have learned one thing from 2016 it's that nothing Hillary Clinton does will be good enough. She's not even allowed to get sick without full disclosure. 

BTW, isn't Colin Powell the Late Lord Frey of American politics? He avoids taking any position until just before the end of the game, and he never takes any position until he's sure that's where most Americans are going to end up. A profile in political courage he is not.