US Elections - furniture shopping with disaster

[Dr. Pepper]

8 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

What time is the talky war? And is it gonna be on youtubes?

9pm, livestream links will be all over the place, but I usually just click from here.  

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

37 minutes ago, Fez said:

If McMullin wins Utah and no candidate clears 270 EV, I'd give McMullin pretty good odds of becoming President.

He wouldn't even need a huge amount of support in the House. Technically he could do it with only 57 House members supporting him, although that would require getting majorities from the 26 states with the smallest delegations. 

More likely he gets through as a compromise candidate since Democrats won't have 26 delegations and just enough of the Republican delegations will be NeverTrumpers.

There's no chance they'd select him over Trump. It would destroy their party. And even if they tried I suspect Clinton would win with a plurality of the states' congressional representations. 

As for tonight's debate, get ready to be disgusted. Trump's only hope of winning at this point is to try and make Clinton out to be the most vile person ever. 

[mormont]

41 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

At this point, accusations of sexual crimes against Bill and Donald neutralise each other.

I was going to talk about how this is not the narrative Trump's going for, but really at this point Trump doesn't even have anything coherent enough to be called a narrative. He lurches from outraged denial that he's ever done any of the things he boasted about doing, to rambling about media conspiracies, to accusations against Bill, to sneering attempts to discredit his accusers. The only common thread is that he can't shut up about how he's been accused of sexual assault. This is not helping him.

So on balance, I think in political terms the accusation against Bill isn't neutral, it's likely to keep Trump in this spiral where he can't recover.

In moral terms, which is not what I think you meant, the idea that two accusations neutralise each other would be utterly wrong.

[Swordfish]

5 minutes ago, mormont said:

I was going to talk about how this is not the narrative Trump's going for, but really at this point Trump doesn't even have anything coherent enough to be called a narrative. He lurches from outraged denial that he's ever done any of the things he boasted about doing, to rambling about media conspiracies, to accusations against Bill, to sneering attempts to discredit his accusers. The only common thread is that he can't shut up about how he's been accused of sexual assault. This is not helping him.

So on balance, I think in political terms the accusation against Bill isn't neutral, it's likely to keep Trump in this spiral where he can't recover.

In moral terms, which is not what I think you meant, the idea that two accusations neutralise each other would be utterly wrong.

I would agree with this, they do not neutralize each other.  Not even close, since Bill isn't running.

However, it's certainly not reassuring to be putting a sexual predator back in the white house, even as first husband.

If it were anyone but Trump, this stuff would be hurting her significantly, and rightfully so.

[Ariadne23]

2 hours ago, Kalbear said:

It is an interesting point, though. I voted for Clinton in 92 and 96 - though I wasn't particularly involved in politics then and the amount of news around it wasn't nearly as big as it is now. I don't know how I'd feel about voting for him now, if he were running against GHWB. I wouldn't vote for Bush - I opposed getting into Iraq then - but being an 18 year old and hearing about cheating didn't sound nearly that bad. Hearing about sexually assaulting women though? That's pretty vile.

It is tough. If Bill Clinton was, today, running against George H.W. Bush or Bob Dole, with Ross Perot and Ralph Nader as alternative candidates in both races, what would any of us do? I can't even really say "knowing what we know now," because I think we knew it then. The culture has just changed so much regarding our understanding of the typical behavior of assailants and their targets that we see things now that we did not see before. I'd like to think he would've been kicked to the curb during the primaries. And I suppose that would mean Hillary Clinton would not be a candidate for President today. That is uncomfortable.

If nothing else, I hope we have, as a nation, moved past arguing over whether "rape culture" is a thing.

[Dr. Pepper]

Is Trump going to return to birtherism?  Is that the reason he's invited Obama's Kenyan half-brother?  I can't imagine any other reason he'd invite a Muslim immigrant of color.  

Clinton seems to be bringing in the billionaires.  So first debate she baited Trump with a woman.  This debate I wonder if she'll be baiting him by using his bad business history and bad deal making and bad negotiation and all that other stuff he has been saying he's the best with and maybe also about how he's not really that rich.  

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

 I think she should hammer him on releasing his taxes. I know she's brought it up at the last 2 debates, but it seems to me they were both brief mentions that got swept under the rug quickly. I kind of feel like this is something he could be goaded into doing. Or at the very least, he seems to get quite annoyed at the question.

[Kalbear]

9 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Is Trump going to return to birtherism?  Is that the reason he's invited Obama's Kenyan half-brother?  I can't imagine any other reason he'd invite a Muslim immigrant of color.  

Clinton seems to be bringing in the billionaires.  So first debate she baited Trump with a woman.  This debate I wonder if she'll be baiting him by using his bad business history and bad deal making and bad negotiation and all that other stuff he has been saying he's the best with and maybe also about how he's not really that rich.  

This seems reasonable. Recent attack ads have been stressing a lot of his lack of business acumen and there was a recent one about 'if you had this resume on your desk, would you hire him?' - might be a good set up for it, and it hits his ego pretty hard.

[Fez]

1 hour ago, Tywin et al. said:

There's no chance they'd select him over Trump. It would destroy their party. And even if they tried I suspect Clinton would win with a plurality of the states' congressional representations. 

As for tonight's debate, get ready to be disgusted. Trump's only hope of winning at this point is to try and make Clinton out to be the most vile person ever. 

Much like the vote for House Speaker, a plurality doesn't mean anything; the House is deadlocked until there's a majority. And selecting Trump would also destroy their party.

Also note, it would probably only take 3 or 4 delegations to block Trump (since all the Democrats would as well); Utah would be one, and there's likely a few at-large delegations he could take.

Finally, it might just be Utah; there's not been enough data, but I wouldn't put Idaho out of the realm of possibility as well. There's only been one recent poll of Idaho, and it didn't include McMullin, but had Trump up over Clinton only 40-30. There's less Mormons in Idaho, so its a harder lift, but the reports on the ground are that McMullin support has been growing just as much there.

Of course this is all incredibly theoretical, Clinton is going to win big in just under 3 weeks.

[The Anti-Targ]

54 minutes ago, mormont said:

In moral terms, which is not what I think you meant, the idea that two accusations neutralise each other would be utterly wrong.

Oh gosh no! I would be horrified if anyone thought it was a moral equalisation or neutralisation. Unfortunately these very serious accusations are a political gambit. I take people's points that the new accusation against Bill could be a negative for Trump. But at this point I think the "average voter" will basically see it as a wash in terms of who deserves their vote. 

But what I forgot to mention was that all these accusations on Bill and Don makes it very hard to deny rape culture by those people who staunchly believe all these accusations are true. If what is alleged is true about this latest sexual assault by Bill, it just astounds me that anyone could think that sort of behaviour is in any way reasonable in the mind of what seems to be an otherwise sane person unless a rape culture exists. "Sexual contact with any woman of my choosing is my right which can be asserted irrespective of what the woman wants." That is surely the attitude of a Bill Clinton who rubs himself to orgasm on a vocally unwilling woman in the editing suite of a TV studio. That attitude cannot exist in a moral vacuum, especially since it seems to exist among a lot of men of power and standing.

[The Anti-Targ]

41 minutes ago, Dr. Pepper said:

Is Trump going to return to birtherism?  Is that the reason he's invited Obama's Kenyan half-brother?  I can't imagine any other reason he'd invite a Muslim immigrant of color.  

Clinton seems to be bringing in the billionaires.  So first debate she baited Trump with a woman.  This debate I wonder if she'll be baiting him by using his bad business history and bad deal making and bad negotiation and all that other stuff he has been saying he's the best with and maybe also about how he's not really that rich.  

Well it's certainly proof positive that there is a man, with last name Obama, who is not a natural born US citizen, who is Muslim, and African, therefore Hillary Clinton can't be president.

Of course if Trump was in power right now, Malik Obama would have been denied entry into the USA because of his Muslimness and he would not be able to be present at the debate to... do what exactly in support of Trump? Perhaps if Malik gets a mention by Trump Hillary could zing him with something like that.

[Dr. Pepper]

6 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Well it's certainly proof positive that there is a man, with last name Obama, who is not a natural born US citizen, who is Muslim, and African, therefore Hillary Clinton can't be president.

Of course if Trump was in power right now, Malik Obama would have been denied entry into the USA because of his Muslimness and he would not be able to be present at the debate to... do what exactly in support of Trump? Perhaps if Malik gets a mention by Trump Hillary could zing him with something like that.

I hope she does.  It just seems so stupid on Trump's part to bring Malik Obama.  Like, there's nothing to be gained for him, not even a low blow point.  I hope her team is prepping her for good comebacks.  A reminder of Trump's birtherism past, point out that Trump would deny entry to a person of Malik's background, etc.   

[James Arryn]

5 hours ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

 Honestly I think she's been kind of average at best. She often seems to be unable to answer a question directly, and at times comes up with absolutely ludicrous sidebars. (The Lincoln movie response in the last debate). Donald mostly buries himself. I do feel that Access Hollywood tape was way more damaging than anything that came out of that debate. It's his reactions to these sorts of things that make him look so bad. The half-assed apology, the forum of Slick Willy's exes, the stalking around the debate stage, telling his rally crowds that he couldn't have sexually harassed these women because they weren't attractive enough,  etc. This things are far more damaging than anything Hillary has thrown at him. He's his own worst enemy. 

Yeah, aside from being there while Trump Trumps, she's been meh at best. Not her game, I think. But her team's post-debate usage of Trumpings has been good, and fast.

edit: agree with swordfish that Obama's shadow plays a role, but Bill was also much better. On the whole, though, there haven't been many Presidential candidates who are particularly good at debates in recent history; Kerry, Gore, McCain, Dubya et  al were all pretty meh. Gore maybe won on transcript more than the others, though.

 

[Kalbear]

hee

 

[Jace, Extat]

1 minute ago, Kalbear said:

hee

 

Actually, I have no doubt that the Obama brother was put to Mr. Trump's 'extreme' secrete vetting process.

[all swedes are racist]

7 minutes ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

Actually, I have no doubt that the Obama brother was put to Mr. Trump's 'extreme' secrete vetting process.

Which, turns out, is simply observing how much Mountain Dew and 'Baja Blast!' flavored Doritos he can consume in one sitting.

 

[Xray the Enforcer]

wait. there are Baja Blast flavored Doritos?!

[Kalbear]

I will never forgive this election for bringing Scott Baio back into the national consciousness again.

[Xray the Enforcer]

yo better than Kirk Cameron and that goddamned banana

 

[Inigima]

Isn't McMillin a local and a Mormon? I'm skeptical that Utah would support a third party to this extent under other circumstances.