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

[Fez]

3 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

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.

That's true. But New Hampshire is swingy as fuck. I would not want to put all my chips on it holding. And there's always the chance that something else flips. On the other hand, its also true that something red may unexpectedly flip even in a very tight race; which would help tremendously. But that's not the place where the race should be, Clinton should be beating Trump like a rented mule; and she was a few weeks ago. And maybe she will again in a few weeks, especially if Obama stays in the spotlight for her, but right now, not so much.

[TrackerNeil]

33 minutes ago, Fez said:

But that's not the place where the race should be, Clinton should be beating Trump like a rented mule; and she was a few weeks ago. And maybe she will again in a few weeks, especially if Obama stays in the spotlight for her, but right now, not so much.

I find it curious that losing candidates in elections are always blamed for not winning, as if the way the public votes is utterly dependent upon how X candidate performs. If Americans are turning increasingly towards a bullying, lying bigot as the leader of the free world, it's not Hillary Clinton who's to blame.

[IheartIheartTesla]

I felt exactly the same way when Bernie Sanders lost, of course it was the Democratic primary voters who were to blame.

[Fez]

6 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I find it curious that losing candidates in elections are always blamed for not winning, as if the way the public votes is utterly dependent upon how X candidate performs. If Americans are turning increasingly towards a bullying, lying bigot as the leader of the free world, it's not Hillary Clinton who's to blame.

I think it is Clinton to blame though, if she loses. The polls show that in a hypothetical matchup Obama would destroy Trump; which suggests that a lot of generic Democrats would beat him as well. Its Clinton specific issues that people have that are causing the problem. Many of those issues are unfair, but they exist, have existed for a long time, and Clinton and her campaign have been pretty bad at addressing those issues.

Furthermore, the polls don't show people turning towards Trump, he's still polling around where he always is, the polls show people turning away from Clinton and going third party. And enough of them are doing so that Clinton's support is getting dangerously close to that baseline level that Trump has always been at. So Trump isn't gaining voters, Clinton is losing them, and that's on her.

[The Marquis de Leech]

16 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

I find it curious that losing candidates in elections are always blamed for not winning, 

Well, apart from McCain in 2008, Dole in 1996, Ford in 1976, Humphrey in 1968, Nixon in 1960...

Actually, speaking of 1976, that'd be the precedent for a candidate turning what should have been a landslide into a squeaker. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, Mudguard said:

You're selectively dismissing evidence that you don't like. 

I'm curious, do you see the laughable irony in this comment? Because I've provided several links to a wealth of data and one that goes in-depth in explaining how stereotypes work and you dismissed it all (I'm pretty sure you didn't read any of the links considering your response was just 20 minutes after my post) while clinging to one poll with an incomplete data set to make your argument. When you're ready to have an adult conversation I'll be here. Until then don't waste my time.

[SeanF]

Trump's comparatively poor performance in some solidly Red States (eg Texas, Utah, Arizona, Kansas) is interesting, and does point to some conservatives and/or religious Republicans disliking him so much that they'll sit on their hands. But, I can't see him losing any Red States, even if he wins them by a smaller margin than Romney did.  Ultimately, it makes no difference whether you win a State by 5% or 15%, in terms of Electoral College votes.

The flip side is that if he's doing better than Romney in the US as a whole, he'll be doing better in some Blue States and swing States.

[The guy from the Vale]

Still, even a minor further shift in the polls might make this far too close for comfort. And those polls mostly haven't included Clinton's health troubles over last weekend just yet.

[Swordfish]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

I find it curious that losing candidates in elections are always blamed for not winning, as if the way the public votes is utterly dependent upon how X candidate performs. If Americans are turning increasingly towards a bullying, lying bigot as the leader of the free world, it's not Hillary Clinton who's to blame.

 

Right.  Even losing an election would not be HRC's fault.  It's the fault of the unwashed masses.  Naturally.

 

2 hours ago, TrackerNeil said:

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?

 

Ha...  Isn't taking long for the lions to eat their young on this I see.

Quote

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.

I think you're confusing Powell with Clinton.

 

Nevertheless, I'm not sure how this is relevant to the criticisms he made of HRC.

[Swordfish]

6 hours ago, mormont said:

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.

 

Except comparison isn't what is happening here.  What's happening here is 'your criticism of Clinton is invalid because you are not criticizing Trump enough at the same time.'.  Which is pretty silly, and pretty clearly comes from an inability or an unwillingness to address criticism on it's own merits.

 

Quote

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

This is another fine example of the state of discourse in politics.  Any criticisms of HRC draw petty personal attacks.  

It's pretty disappointing, TBH.  There really is no legitimate claim to the high road anymore.

 

 

 

 

[S John]

1 hour ago, SeanF said:

Trump's comparatively poor performance in some solidly Red States (eg Texas, Utah, Arizona, Kansas) is interesting, and does point to some conservatives and/or religious Republicans disliking him so much that they'll sit on their hands. But, I can't see him losing any Red States, even if he wins them by a smaller margin than Romney did.  Ultimately, it makes no difference whether you win a State by 5% or 15%, in terms of Electoral College votes.

The flip side is that if he's doing better than Romney in the US as a whole, he'll be doing better in some Blue States and swing States.

Texas and Arizona - heavily Latino

Kansas and Utah - full of religious true believers who know damn well Trump isn't an actual Christian

But you're right, Trump probably will still win all four.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

33 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Still, even a minor further shift in the polls might make this far too close for comfort. And those polls mostly haven't included Clinton's health troubles over last weekend just yet.

It's already too close for comfort.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

Clinton's prevent defense has given up a deep pass. 

[Weeping Sore]

37.5% chance of victory for Trump now according to 538. I had been mentally relying on record Latino turnout to trounce him, but they point out that Latino voters are mostly concentrated in safely blue states, with the exception of Nevada. I guess polling Florida Latinos would be instructive, whether the traditionally more conservative Cuban American vote will make an exception to vote against Trump. Without Florida, he's toast, whereas Clinton has ways of winning without Florida.

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

Well, apart from McCain in 2008, Dole in 1996, Ford in 1976, Humphrey in 1968, Nixon in 1960...

Actually, speaking of 1976, that'd be the precedent for a candidate turning what should have been a landslide into a squeaker. 

So no one thought McCain should have hit Obama harder, or connected better with Americans, blah, blah? I'm not convinced.

[TrackerNeil]

21 minutes ago, Swordfish said:

 

Right.  Even losing an election would not be HRC's fault.  It's the fault of the unwashed masses.  Naturally.

Unwashed masses? I usually just call you Swordfish.

[all swedes are racist]

Little Trumps cite big and confusing as reasons for chief Trump to not release tax returns

Quote

"You would have a bunch of people who know nothing about taxes trying to look through and trying to come up with assumptions on something they know nothing about. It would be foolish to do,” Eric Trump said in an interview with CNBC.

Lol, the irony

[Swordfish]

51 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Unwashed masses? I usually just call you Swordfish.

 

That's fine.  Long as ya doesn't call me late for dinner......

 

[Weeping Sore]

I'm concerned that the candidate with more "charisma" has won since 76:

76 Carter > Ford

80 Reagan > Carter

84 Reagan > Mondale

88 H W Bush  >Dukakis

92 B Clinton > H W Bush and Perot

96 B Clinton > Dole

00 W Bush > Gore

04 W Bush > Kerry

08 Obama > McCain

12 Obama > Romney

16 Trump > H Clinton

I'm not sure what charisma scores to give each of these candidates on the AD&D scale of 3-18, I'm inclined to give highest marks to Reagan, B Clinton and Obama. I can't see giving H Clinton more than a 13, and I think Trump has to get at least a 15, because that's literally all he has-no substance whatever and is all performative bluster and base manipulation. And H Clinton is a million times more competent. But Gore and Kerry were more competent than W Bush and it didn't get them anywhere.

There's also a good argument to be made that the concept of charisma is gendered and we don't tend to give women high scores, so grain of salt.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

4 minutes ago, Weeping Sore said:

I'm concerned that the candidate with more "charisma" has won since 76:

76 Carter > Ford

80 Reagan > Carter

84 Reagan > Mondale

88 H W Bush  >Dukakis

92 B Clinton > H W Bush and Perot

96 B Clinton > Dole

00 W Bush > Gore

04 W Bush > Kerry

08 Obama > McCain

12 Obama > Romney

16 Trump > H Clinton

I'm not sure what charisma scores to give each of these candidates on the AD&D scale of 3-18, I'm inclined to give highest marks to Reagan, B Clinton and Obama. I can't see giving H Clinton more than a 13, and I think Trump has to get at least a 15, because that's literally all he has-no substance whatever and is all performative bluster and base manipulation. And H Clinton is a million times more competent. But Gore and Kerry were more competent than W Bush and it didn't get them anywhere.

There's also a good argument to be made that the concept of charisma is gendered and we don't tend to give women high scores, so grain of salt.

But how much of that assigning charisma scores is ex post facto because they won or lost? Was HW Bush really that much more charismatic than Dukakis?

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 minutes ago, R'hllors Red Lobster said:

Little Trumps cite big and confusing as reasons for chief Trump to not release tax returns

Lol, the irony

I personally prefer Trump saying, in the same sentence, that he can't release his tax returns because of the audit, but he would be willing to release them if Clinton released her deleted emails, thereby confirming that he can actually release them, but just doesn't want to.