US Elections 2016: Why we can't have nice things

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

1 hour ago, James Arryn said:

It's a bit complicated, Scott. I am somewhat academic, and I can write when need be, but the shortest honest answer is that I've pretty much lived off of being attractive most of my adult life, one way or another.

Sounds interesting.  What is your academic field (if you don't mind revealing it).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

An email from my priest this morning:

When small men begin to cast big shadows, it means that the sun is about to set.

Lin Yutang, writer and translator. (10 October 1895-1976)

Sounds ominous.

[LongRider]

When she was speaking and moving around on stage, at times he followed her and stood very closely behind her which could appear menacing.  It was creepy.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

3 minutes ago, LongRider said:

When she was speaking and moving around on stage, at times he followed her and stood very closely behind her which could appear menacing.  It was creepy.

Trump being creepy.  That's like saying water is wet.

[Fez]

7 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Clinton would likely be losing to almost any other Republican candidate. Trump is an embarrassment to the country, but still a gift to liberals. 

Polls back during the primaries had her winning most hypothetical matchups, albeit not by as much as those polls had her beating Trump; including against Cruz, who would have probably been the nominee if not for Trump. The very notable exception was Kasich, who clobbered her in those polls. Any number of blue state Republicans would probably also easily win (Baker, Hogan, etc.) but none of them ran for President and for good reason, none of them could win the primary.

Granted, Clinton is in a weaker position now than she was back in March/April; but there's so many variables that would be different if there was a different GOP nominee that its impossible to say where things would be now. Democratic officials in PA, OH, and IA were saying back over the summer though that they thought Cruz would've been a much easier opponent in their states because he wouldn't have that extra appeal to working class whites that Trump has. I think Clinton could've grinded out a win against most of the plausible Republican candidates; just maybe with more of a focus on the midwest instead of the southeast. 

Of course, with the current trajectory of the race, Clinton now doesn't need to focus anywhere; and can instead try to boost margins everywhere to bring more downballot Democrats across the finish line. Things could still go badly, the way they were back before the first debate, but there's less and less time for that to happen.

[DunderMifflin]

Wait what's this about stalking? 

I didn't get to see it I'm still without power thanks to Hurricane Matthew

[SkynJay]

Gore tried the 'stand next to the opponent and physically loom' tactic against Bush and it looked horrible.  Trump trying against a women in light of his released comments just show that there is no oNE in his campaign that can control him. Someone would have pointed out whathat a bad look it is surely?

[butterbumps!]

3 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Wait what's this about stalking? 

I didn't get to see it I'm still without power thanks to Hurricane Matthew

Here's the way Slate describes it:

Quote

Clinton, despite rumors to the contrary, is a human being. She had to speak fluently about policy while being flayed for her husband’s sins before an audience of tens of millions. She had to appear unruffled while Trump, stewing and pacing, loomed behind her, physically menacing her with his bulk.

He stalked into her space kind of menacingly while she responded to questions.  That is, when he wasn't pacing and scowling restlessly.

here's another source

[OldGimletEye]

21 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Clinton would likely be losing to almost any other Republican candidate. Trump is an embarrassment to the country, but still a gift to liberals. 

Likely true. You'd hope the intellectuals within the GOP/conservative establishment would sit back and reflect how exactly Trump was able to take over the GOP and then blow it up. And maybe realize it happened because of their own very bad choices.

But, they probably won't. They'll just blame Obama or something. And will keep on a hopin that the "true conservative" will arise out of the mist, like Brigadoon style.

[The guy from the Vale]

2 minutes ago, OldGimletEye said:

Likely true. You'd hope the intellectuals within the GOP/conservative establishment would sit back and reflect how exactly Trump was able to take over the GOP and then blow it up. And maybe realize it happened because of their own very bad choices.

But, they probably won't. They'll just blame Obama or something.

Clinton. Blaming Obama will hopefully become a thing of the past once Clinton is elected. Which is good for Obama, but still.

In reference to the GRRM comparison earlier, Bill Clinton was a Robert Baratheon (terrible man but decent president), Bush was a Tommen (probably good-natured, but incompetent and controlled by malevolent forces), Obama was a Jon Snow (a good man and good politician who nevertheless underestimated the partisanship and prejudice of his opponents) and Trump looks like he'd be a Joffrey (incompetent, malicious, and doesn't even understand why his beliefs and actions are such a problem).

[DunderMifflin]

I'd say Trump would be outside of royalty. He clearly doesn't belong with the establishment. He might be like a Ramsay, once a bastard now legit.

[Guess who's back]

5 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Clinton. Blaming Obama will hopefully become a thing of the past once Clinton is elected. Which is good for Obama, but still.

In reference to the GRRM comparison earlier, Bill Clinton was a Robert Baratheon (terrible man but decent president), Bush was a Tommen (probably good-natured, but incompetent and controlled by malevolent forces), Obama was a Jon Snow (a good man and good politician who nevertheless underestimated the partisanship and prejudice of his opponents) and Trump looks like he'd be a Joffrey (incompetent, malicious, and doesn't even understand why his beliefs and actions are such a problem).

And Hillary would be queen Cercei? 

[The guy from the Vale]

Quite the opposite. Trump, son of a New York real estate tycoon billionaire, is the embodiment of the establishment far more than Obama or either Clinton ever were.

[OldGimletEye]

4 minutes ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Blaming Obama will hopefully become a thing of the past once Clinton is elected. Which is good for Obama, but still.

Given Obama's recent approval ratings, it was dumb to go after Obama hard. That might have been great red meat for Republican audience, but not well with America generally. Trump and Pence were evidently too stoopid to figure that out. Evidently, only dirty hippy types can read a frickin poll. But maybe Republicans don't believe in looking at empirical evidence (no surprise there), but instead think campaigning ought to be a faith based initiative.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

Ignore @James Arryn. He's drunk. Really drunk. Like that type of drunk you feel where on the one hand your beloved baseball team advanced in the playoffs, while on the other hand, your beloved football team is fouler than a Donald Trump bowel movement. 

[The guy from the Vale]

1 minute ago, Guess who's back said:

And Hillary would be queen Cercei? 

Now that's your interpretation

[OnionAhaiReborn]

4 minutes ago, Fez said:

Polls back during the primaries had her winning most hypothetical matchups, albeit not by as much as those polls had her beating Trump; including against Cruz, who would have probably been the nominee if not for Trump. The very notable exception was Kasich, who clobbered her in those polls. Any number of blue state Republicans would probably also easily win (Baker, Hogan, etc.) but none of them ran for President and for good reason, none of them could win the primary.

Granted, Clinton is in a weaker position now than she was back in March/April; but there's so many variables that would be different if there was a different GOP nominee that its impossible to say where things would be now. Democratic officials in PA, OH, and IA were saying back over the summer though that they thought Cruz would've been a much easier opponent in their states because he wouldn't have that extra appeal to working class whites that Trump has. I think Clinton could've grinded out a win against most of the plausible Republican candidates; just maybe with more of a focus on the midwest instead of the southeast. 

Of course, with the current trajectory of the race, Clinton now doesn't need to focus anywhere; and can instead try to boost margins everywhere to bring more downballot Democrats across the finish line. Things could still go badly, the way they were back before the first debate, but there's less and less time for that to happen.

Cruz is one of the few I think she'd be beating as well. Carson too. Christie if he ends up impeached over bridgegate. I did say "almost any other."

Most of the other contenders- there were so many, it's easy to forget them all- were out before the March/April polls you're talking about. But Rubio and Kasich were doing well. I expect the legion of other candidates in the Rubio/Kasich (polished, establishment conservatives) mold who dropped out much earlier would have polled about as well.

Clinton has had a difficult summer and still has a terrible favorability rating (yet better than Trump's). Also worth considering the media shitstorm that would be raining down on her right now over the public/private position comment were it not for the fact that her opponent was caught on tape bragging about committing sexual assault. Before anyone rushes in to defend Clinton's comment- you can say the comment doesn't bother you, or even that you agree with it, that's not the point. Just objectively consider the way other people would react to it under normal circumstances. 

[OldGimletEye]

Just now, theguyfromtheVale said:

Now that's your interpretation

For some reason, I can see Cersei being a Randdroid and an ardent supply sider.

[DunderMifflin]

1 minute ago, theguyfromtheVale said:

Quite the opposite. Trump, son of a New York real estate tycoon billionaire, is the embodiment of the establishment far more than Obama or either Clinton ever were.

Political establishment, I don't think so.

He's about as an unconvential candidate as ive ever seen in recent memory.

Obama was pretty unconventional as well but I like the Jon Snow comparison.

Hilary has been involved in politics for decades I'm quite sure she has established herself as a career politician at this point.

[The guy from the Vale]

4 minutes ago, DunderMifflin said:

Political establishment, I don't think so.

He's about as an unconvential candidate as ive ever seen in recent memory.

Obama was pretty unconventional as well but I like the Jon Snow comparison.

Hilary has been involved in politics for decades I'm quite sure she has established herself as a career politician at this point.

If you need a ASoIaF analogy for HRC, I still don't think Cersei is the best option. But there's not many ways for women in ASoIaF to gain power, far less so than in our world, and even there Hillary Clinton is a first. Cersei doesn't work because of Cersei's extreme derangement. Dany doesn't work either, as she's the ultimate outsider. If I have to take some powerful ASoIaF woman to describe Hillary, I guess I'd have to go with the Queen of Thorns.