U.S. Elections 2016 - Polls in mirror appear closer than they are

[SeanF]

25 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

Is anyone else struggling with seeing all Trump voters as unworthy of sympathy and any Trump vote as wholly indefensible?   I say "struggle" because feeling this way toward huge swaths of the populace isn't really morally right, but nothing I've read or seen or witnessed of the various people making up Trump support is remotely sympathetic or reasonable to me.

is it unfair to understand his support as a combination of the following:

-racists, xenos, misogynists

-the woefully gullible (I'm including "normal" republicans voting for the home team tribalistically, because party over country, how bad could he really be, right?)

even those who "just want change" have no ground to stand on; even if it is desirable to shake up the whole system from scratch, Trump is absolutely not the person who should be at the helm of that mission, and one has to be incredibly naive to think otherwise.  Or totally unable to understand that not all change is good change-- change isn't exactly a self-evident positive.

I get that my east coast super liberal urban disdain for them/ their voting choice exacerbates the issue, but I'm still really struggling to be tolerant or sympathetic toward this.   Is anyone else going through this?

 

I think that for a very big chunk of the electorate, it's a question of voting for the least bad candidate, whichever of the two you think that is.  Both candidates have horrible approval ratings.

[butterbumps!]

23 minutes ago, SeanF said:

I think that for a very big chunk of the electorate, it's a question of voting for the least bad candidate, whichever of the two you think that is.  Both candidates have horrible approval ratings.

does that in some way run counter to my post?    what I posted applies to those who come to the conclusion that Trump is a lesser evil than Hillary.  Any Trump vote seems utterly indefensible.

[Gertrude]

I was talking with my father about this recently because he is going to vote Trump. He doesn't like him, but the idea of someone who will blow up the 'business as usual' Washington crowd is appealing to him. Trump has said many things that, as my dad put it, 'makes my skin crawl', but he's still voting for him. His reason boils down to the Supreme Court. It's pretty much that simple for him. He thinks any damage done by Trump will be tempered by those around him and that the damage would be worse if Hillary gets to appoint new justices.

[TrackerNeil]

14 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

It's true that most of Hillary's problems are self inflicted and that she's not a natural or talented campaigner, but I think it could make people skittish for a couple election cycles. It's kind of the nature of trying something new and seeing it fail. 

I'd say most of Hillary's problems are Republican-inflicted; twenty years of groundless, relentless character assassination will tend to trash a reputation. Ask the average voter what Hillary Clinton has done wrong and you'll likely get vagaries ("Email!" or "Benghazi!") or else simple discomfort ("She rubs me the wrong way"). I very rarely hear reasoned criticism, even though I think there is valid criticism one could make. Maybe all the reasoned criticism is happening where I can't see it, but I'm not banking on that.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

2 hours ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Not struggling, but I feel the same way. History is not a steady March towards enlightenment or equality, there are dozens of examples of progressive societies collapsing and or regressing, most never to be seen again. Trump represents cultural regression, and anyone who supports such a thing is less than human to me.

Should anyone be described as "less than human"?  That seems like a bad place to go.

[James Arryn]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

I'd say most of Hillary's problems are Republican-inflicted; twenty years of groundless, relentless character assassination will tend to trash a reputation. Ask the average voter what Hillary Clinton has done wrong and you'll likely get vagaries ("Email!" or "Benghazi!") or else simple discomfort ("She rubs me the wrong way"). I very rarely hear reasoned criticism, even though I think there is valid criticism one could make. Maybe all the reasoned criticism is happening where I can't see it, but I'm not banking on that.

I've come to the conclusion that these particular exchanges are completely pointless. Critics of Hillary (even among supporters) see her as at least partially responsible for how she is perceived, whereas her more zealous defenders repeatedly portray her in the role of victim...victim of media conspiracy, or conservatism, sexism, character assassination, etc. etc. 

I think by now we know that neither is convincing the other...what worries me as someone who thinks that she's more than a victim but wants her to win is that many of her supporters seem to think that just blank denial followed by listing the ways in which she's a victim is an effective response to criticism. I think this has a lot to do with why she's historically been a poor closer.

[SerPaladin]

3 hours ago, butterbumps! said:

I'm including "normal" republicans voting for the home team tribalistically, because party over country, how bad could he really be, right?

Isn't a significant amount of Hillary's support "tribalistic"? That was the argument to make Sanders endorse her, and the arguments against Jill Stein shaving a couple points off of Clinton's support. I saw Slate ran an article in the last couple weeks trying to call liberals protest voting for Gary Johnson back home to the D column. Support "the team".

And that's #1 among my problems with this election cycle, and politics for the last 10-15 years, seeing an increase after 9/11. It's not about ideas or principles anymore. I used to joke with my liberal friends that Bill Clinton was one of our more accomplished Republican presidents. He triangulated, he was among the creators of NAFTA, he reformed welfare, heck, he even signed and supported DOMA and the Religious Freedom Act.

The crazy-cons didn't care and attacked him because he was on the other team, they made it personal, and they told themselves that it was OK because the Ds attacked Reagan (even though the Rs took it too far with the special prosecutors). Then the same happened with Bush. Instead of substantive attacks, the left relied upon personal attacks, and they were not terribly effective, and that made the liberals even more salty. When Obama won, it was the other team's turn again to attack, attack, attack, and make it personal.

And now the candidates are the most despised presidential nominees in history. We won't get another Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt or Bill Clinton, because people don't want to be governed well, they want to win and crush their enemies. They want it all, now, and also want the other side to get nothing, or roll backward.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

8 minutes ago, SerPaladin said:

Isn't a significant amount of Hillary's support "tribalistic"? That was the argument to make Sanders endorse her, and the arguments against Jill Stein shaving a couple points off of Clinton's support. I saw Slate ran an article in the last couple weeks trying to call liberals protest voting for Gary Johnson back home to the D column. Support "the team".

And that's #1 among my problems with this election cycle, and politics for the last 10-15 years, seeing an increase after 9/11. It's not about ideas or principles anymore. I used to joke with my liberal friends that Bill Clinton was one of our more accomplished Republican presidents. He triangulated, he was among the creators of NAFTA, he reformed welfare, heck, he even signed and supported DOMA and the Religious Freedom Act.

The crazy-cons didn't care and attacked him because he was on the other team, they made it personal, and they told themselves that it was OK because the Ds attacked Reagan (even though the Rs took it too far with the special prosecutors). Then the same happened with Bush. Instead of substantive attacks, the left relied upon personal attacks, and they were not terribly effective, and that made the liberals even more salty. When Obama won, it was the other team's turn again to attack, attack, attack, and make it personal.

And now the candidates are the most despised presidential nominees in history. We won't get another Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt or Bill Clinton, because people don't want to be governed well, they want to win and crush their enemies. They want it all, now, and also want the other side to get nothing, or roll backward.

SerP,

Missed you man. 

[butterbumps!]

12 minutes ago, SerPaladin said:

Isn't a significant amount of Hillary's support "tribalistic"? That was the argument to make Sanders endorse her, and the arguments against Jill Stein shaving a couple points off of Clinton's support. I saw Slate ran an article in the last couple weeks trying to call liberals protest voting for Gary Johnson back home to the D column. Support "the team".

And that's #1 among my problems with this election cycle, and politics for the last 10-15 years, seeing an increase after 9/11. It's not about ideas or principles anymore. I used to joke with my liberal friends that Bill Clinton was one of our more accomplished Republican presidents. He triangulated, he was among the creators of NAFTA, he reformed welfare, heck, he even signed and supported DOMA and the Religious Freedom Act.

The crazy-cons didn't care and attacked him because he was on the other team, they made it personal, and they told themselves that it was OK because the Ds attacked Reagan (even though the Rs took it too far with the special prosecutors). Then the same happened with Bush. Instead of substantive attacks, the left relied upon personal attacks, and they were not terribly effective, and that made the liberals even more salty. When Obama won, it was the other team's turn again to attack, attack, attack, and make it personal.

And now the candidates are the most despised presidential nominees in history. We won't get another Eisenhower or Teddy Roosevelt or Bill Clinton, because people don't want to be governed well, they want to win and crush their enemies. They want it all, now, and also want the other side to get nothing, or roll backward.

You don't think it's maybe a bit unfair or slightly disingenuous to draw equivalency between wanting Sanders to get behind Clinton and unify against a unilaterally unfit dangerous demagogue and reps who simply can't bring themselves to vote for the other team, lying to themselves that trump won't be that bad despite all evidence to the contrary?

i agree the general tribalism is a massive problem, but it seems unfair to equate the call to unify against someone like trump to that.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

15 hours ago, Altherion said:

Wikipedia says that there were a grand total of 36 when counting states only or 39 if we include DC and Puerto Rico. There are 6 currently in office: 3 Democrats and 3 Republicans. For comparison, there are currently 20 Senators which is more proportional than the number of governors (20 where one would expect 50 rather than 6 where one would expect 25), but historically, there have only been 46 which is less proportional. Thus, I'm not confident in the studies you mention applying to statewide elections.

That list includes someone who held office for a single day for ceremonial reasons. That's not exactly the best way to analyze how people vote or to discredit a study you haven't read........

[SerPaladin]

6 minutes ago, butterbumps! said:

You don't think it's maybe a bit unfair or slightly disingenuous to draw equivalency between wanting Sanders to get behind Clinton and unify against a unilaterally unfit dangerous demagogue and reps who simply can't bring themselves to vote for the other team, lying to themselves that trump won't be that bad despite all evidence to the contrary?

i agree the general tribalism is a massive problem, but it seems unfair to equate the call to unify against someone like trump to that.  

Tomato, to-mah-to. 42% of the country hears unfit dangerous and associates one name, and another 42% hears unfit dangerous and associates a different name.

I'm a "pox on both your houses" sort of guy.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

18 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

That list includes someone who held office for a single day for ceremonial reasons. That's not exactly the best way to analyze how people vote or to discredit a study you haven't read........

Tywin,

If electing women to executive positions is so difficult and it is being resisted by conservatives for sexist reasons how did Nikki Haley get elected and then reelected to the governorship of South Carolina?  We're not noted for our forward social inclusion policies.

[Guess who's back]

Was listening to Americans taking the moral high ground on our refugee crisis in Europe. Made me mad as fuck. And kinda realized how much of a hypocrite I am by trolling here about Trump. Sorry. From now I'm only going to come here as observer.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

This is incredibly troubling. Trump is openly questioning due process:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-bombing-suspect-medical-care_us_57e051fee4b08cb140977816

Also, Trump really does know how to hire the "best people":

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/20/nyregion/bridgegate-trial.html?_r=0

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

I'd say most of Hillary's problems are Republican-inflicted; twenty years of groundless, relentless character assassination will tend to trash a reputation. Ask the average voter what Hillary Clinton has done wrong and you'll likely get vagaries ("Email!" or "Benghazi!") or else simple discomfort ("She rubs me the wrong way"). I very rarely hear reasoned criticism, even though I think there is valid criticism one could make. Maybe all the reasoned criticism is happening where I can't see it, but I'm not banking on that.

I don't think that's a very good argument for why Hillary Clinton is tied with a racist reality T.V. star for President of the United States. 

[Commodore]

23 hours ago, James Arryn said:

What's interesting about it to you?

the paternalism, that he thinks his supporters are and/or should be motivated by not wanting to disappoint him (he's probably not wrong)

Trump has a similar view of his supporters

more evidence of an awful electorate

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

7 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

Tywin,

If electing women to executive positions is so difficult and it is being resisted by conservatives for sexist reasons how did Nikki Haley get elected and then reelected to the governorship of South Carolina?  We're not noted for our forward social inclusion policies.

Tribalism is stronger than sexism?

When did I say it was just conservatives? Liberals and Democrats are guilty too. And Haley is a great politician who will be the Republican nominee in 2020 if Trump loses. 

[SerPaladin]

12 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is incredibly troubling. Trump is openly questioning due process:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/donald-trump-bombing-suspect-medical-care_us_57e051fee4b08cb140977816

That's the due process vs enemy combatant argument. We've been having that one recently since 9/11, at least. It's a by product of terrorism, and defining it as "war" or "crime", and the blurring that happens when US Citizens become enemy combatants. This guy is a US citizen, he is entitled to due process. Period. But Obama pushed for a tightening of prisoner rights when he took office, don't be surprised if a Trump administration swings the pendulum the opposite way.

Hey, look everyone... an actual issue. Someone take a picture of it before it becomes extinct.

[TrackerNeil]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

I've come to the conclusion that these particular exchanges are completely pointless. Critics of Hillary (even among supporters) see her as at least partially responsible for how she is perceived, whereas her more zealous defenders repeatedly portray her in the role of victim...victim of media conspiracy, or conservatism, sexism, character assassination, etc. etc. 

I think by now we know that neither is convincing the other...what worries me as someone who thinks that she's more than a victim but wants her to win is that many of her supporters seem to think that just blank denial followed by listing the ways in which she's a victim is an effective response to criticism. I think this has a lot to do with why she's historically been a poor closer.

It's a good thing you're no longer engaging in pointless exchanges. 

25 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I don't think that's a very good argument for why Hillary Clinton is tied with a racist reality T.V. star for President of the United States. 

Neither do I, but I don't know of a better one. I don't assume that a different Democrat would be doing better, and I'm coming to the (reluctant) conclusion that there are more white nationalists (and sympathizers) in this nation than I ever would have guessed.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

14 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

Tribalism is stronger than sexism?

When did I say it was just conservatives? Liberals and Democrats are guilty too. And Haley is a great politician who will be the Republican nominee in 2020 if Trump loses. 

If you are counting on "tribalism" to explain Haley's win how do you explain how she won the Republican nomination in the first place?

[SerPaladin]

4 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

 I don't assume that a different Democrat would be doing better, and I'm coming to the (reluctant) conclusion that there are more white nationalists (and sympathizers) in this nation than I ever would have guessed.

Joe Biden would be mopping the floor with Trump. Bernie would be doing worse than Hillary. I'm not as familiar with the rest of the bench on the D side.

Romney would be mopping the floor with Clinton. None of the other 2016 Republican primary contenders was the total package, but Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio and even Ted Cruz would probably be beating Clinton comfortably, not by double digits.