Election 2016: Trump vs Clinton

[UNI88]

Agree to a point but isn't that the role of a Representative and not a senator?

This is what I kind of mean. The Senator's main role is to be in Washington DC to represent their state; they really don't have any other duty or powers in the state itself. I agree that they should go back once in a while and speak directly to their constituents, but this isn't the 1800s or early 1900s. Even back then Senators stayed in DC, and now we have an insane amount of ways for Senators to stay in touch with their constituents and get a feel of what's happening back home (email, news, etc.). Never has it been as easy for a constituent hundreds of miles away get in contact with their Senator.

Plus like any enterprise, things get done more efficiently when people work together face-to-face. We literally elect these people to come to DC and get things accomplished. I think it's actually very disruptive to the flow of government (and work in general) when you have to take these forced breaks.

And never has it been easier for a senator to travel between DC and their home state. Why can't they do both? Some rule about time spent at home is no excuse for lack of results and the rule doesn't need changing because of it.

[HI54UNI]

This is what I kind of mean. The Senator's main role is to be in Washington DC to represent their state; they really don't have any other duty or powers in the state itself. I agree that they should go back once in a while and speak directly to their constituents, but this isn't the 1800s or early 1900s. Even back then Senators stayed in DC, and now we have an insane amount of ways for Senators to stay in touch with their constituents and get a feel of what's happening back home (email, news, etc.). Never has it been as easy for a constituent hundreds of miles away get in contact with their Senator.

Plus like any enterprise, things get done more efficiently when people work together face-to-face. We literally elect these people to come to DC and get things accomplished. I think it's actually very disruptive to the flow of government (and work in general) when you have to take these forced breaks.

And never has it been easier for a senator to travel between DC and their home state. Why can't they do both? Some rule about time spent at home is no excuse for lack of results and the rule doesn't need changing because of it.

Agreed. And how much time do they really spend "working" when they are in DC? Not much.

[DSUrocks07]

And never has it been easier for a senator to travel between DC and their home state. Why can't they do both? Some rule about time spent at home is no excuse for lack of results and the rule doesn't need changing because of it.

Agreed. And how much time do they really spend "working" when they are in DC? Not much.

Ironic...

Leftists always vilify CEOs for being vastly overpaid versus the amount of work they are perceived to be doing on the job.

Yet their favorite people are always DC politicians...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[kalm]

Agreed. And how much time do they really spend "working" when they are in DC? Not much.

Ironic...

Leftists always vilify CEOs for being vastly overpaid versus the amount of work they are perceived to be doing on the job.

Yet their favorite people are always DC politicians...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Except Tripp is a Hillary supporter. Not exactly a leftist.

[DSUrocks07]

Ironic...

Leftists always vilify CEOs for being vastly overpaid versus the amount of work they are perceived to be doing on the job.

Yet their favorite people are always DC politicians...

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Except Tripp is a Hillary supporter. Not exactly a leftist.

Hillary: multi-millionaire, political opportunist, in the back pocket of the same Wall Street fat cats that her supporters claim to be against.

But she's a Democrat, so it's all gravy baby

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[∞∞∞]

I have little against Wall Street. It needs to better regulated, but our financial system is the engine that drives the US and global economies. Like it or not, you can't really argue that Wall Street isn't one of the few places that creates genuine wealth for "the little guy" (stock market and investment opportunities, retirement funds, business, education, and vehicle loans, etc). It isn't some boogeyman that's out there to steal everything you own; as a nation we just need to better educate the population on finances and use Wall Street to our advantage. We all have a stake in the economy and we better make sure that we send politicians to DC that will continually improve it, but not completely tear it down. Wall Street is not a perfect system, but it's certainly far from imperfect.

[DSUrocks07]

Sanders wins Oregon, Clinton barely wins Kentucky.

Sanders is continuing his hardline rhetoric against the DNC.

Who would have imagined that it would be the Democratic party falling apart going into the general election...

It's constantly funny how the Hillary supporters are calling Sanders and his supporters idiots yet still want and expect them to fall in line like good little soldiers.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[kalm]

I have little against Wall Street. It needs to better regulated, but our financial system is the engine that drives the US and global economies. Like it or not, you can't really argue that Wall Street isn't one of the few places that creates genuine wealth for "the little guy" (stock market and investment opportunities, retirement funds, business, education, and vehicle loans, etc). It isn't some boogeyman that's out there to steal everything you own; as a nation we just need to better educate the population on finances and use Wall Street to our advantage. We all have a stake in the economy and we better make sure that we send politicians to DC that will continually improve it, but not completely tear it down. Wall Street is not a perfect system, but it's certainly far from imperfect.

Nobody is threatening to tear it down. But Obama and Clinton certainly seem in favor of maintaining its status quo.

[JohnStOnge]

I am encouraged by the fact that substantial numbers of Republicans have continued to vote against Trump even though nobody else is in the race. Like yesterday in Oregon about a third voted for candidates that have withdrawn from the race. I compared what happened in Oregon's late primary last night to what's happened in recent history.

Trump got 67% of the vote with nobody actively running against him.

In 2012 Ron Paul was still in the race with his loyal band of followers when the Oregon primary was held on May 15. Paul did say on May 14 that he would suspend funding of primary races but said he would devote resources to winning delegates at State conventions. So Romney still had active opposition. A candidate with a fanatical following was actively campaigning for primary votes until the day prior to the Oregon primary and was clearly still in the race. Romney got 71% of the vote.

In 2008 John McCain also had Paul still in the race when the Oregon primary was held. McCain got 81% of the vote.

I won't do Oregon 2004 because George W. Bush was an incumbent and got 98% of the overall popular vote in the Republican primaries. But when Bush ran the first time in 2000 he got 84% of the vote in the Oregon primary. And there was still an active opponent in the race. Alan Keyes. That's pretty CLOSE to being unopposed. But he at least had SOMEBODY actively in the race against him at the time.

So Trump is the first non-incumbent Republican candidate since 2000 to go into the Oregon primary with every other candidate having dropped out yet he got the lowest percentage of the popular vote during the period.

And yes I know Trump does the thing about more votes than anybody ever in a Republican primary. Two things about that:

1) The population is constantly increasing. All other things being equal, any given primary should involve more votes than any previous primary.

2) Obviously, if he's had more votes for him than any Republican primary candidate in history and he's going to have maybe 42 or 43% of the vote after last night, he's had more votes AGAINST him than any Republican candidate in history.

[GannonFan]

I am encouraged by the fact that substantial numbers of Republicans have continued to vote against Trump even though nobody else is in the race. Like yesterday in Oregon about a third voted for candidates that have withdrawn from the race. I compared what happened in Oregon's late primary last night to what's happened in recent history.

Trump got 67% of the vote with nobody actively running against him.

In 2012 Ron Paul was still in the race with his loyal band of followers when the Oregon primary was held on May 15. Paul did say on May 14 that he would suspend funding of primary races but said he would devote resources to winning delegates at State conventions. So Romney still had active opposition. A candidate with a fanatical following was actively campaigning for primary votes until the day prior to the Oregon primary and was clearly still in the race. Romney got 71% of the vote.

In 2008 John McCain also had Paul still in the race when the Oregon primary was held. McCain got 81% of the vote.

I won't do Oregon 2004 because George W. Bush was an incumbent and got 98% of the overall popular vote in the Republican primaries. But when Bush ran the first time in 2000 he got 84% of the vote in the Oregon primary. And there was still an active opponent in the race. Alan Keyes. That's pretty CLOSE to being unopposed. But he at least had SOMEBODY actively in the race against him at the time.

So Trump is the first non-incumbent Republican candidate since 2000 to go into the Oregon primary with every other candidate having dropped out yet he got the lowest percentage of the popular vote during the period.

And yes I know Trump does the thing about more votes than anybody ever in a Republican primary. Two things about that:

1) The population is constantly increasing. All other things being equal, any given primary should involve more votes than any previous primary.

2) Obviously, if he's had more votes for him than any Republican primary candidate in history and he's going to have maybe 42 or 43% of the vote after last night, he's had more votes AGAINST him than any Republican candidate in history.

Isn't voting in Oregon done via the mail these days? So many of these people could've voted weeks ago. And I don't think it's always been done via the mail, so comparing it to the past isn't apples to apples.

[BDKJMU]

Trump unveils list of potential SCOTUS picks..
-Steven Colloton, Iowa
-Allison Eid, Colorado
-Raymond Gruender, Missouri.
-Thomas Hardiman, Pennsylvania,
-Raymond Kethledge, Michigan
-Joan Larsen, Michigan
-Thomas Lee, Utah
-William Pryor, Alabama
-David Stras, Minnesota
-Diane Sykes, Wisconsin
-Don Willett, Texas.
"....Trump had previously named Pryor and Sykes as examples of kind of justices he would choose...."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 8-14-08-40

[Ivytalk]

Trump unveils list of potential SCOTUS picks..
-Steven Colloton, Iowa
-Allison Eid, Colorado
-Raymond Gruender, Missouri.
-Thomas Hardiman, Pennsylvania,
-Raymond Kethledge, Michigan
-Joan Larsen, Michigan
-Thomas Lee, Utah
-William Pryor, Alabama
-David Stras, Minnesota
-Diane Sykes, Wisconsin
-Don Willett, Texas.
"....Trump had previously named Pryor and Sykes as examples of kind of justices he would choose...."
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/ ... 8-14-08-40

At least his Donk sister didn't make the cut.

[JohnStOnge]

Surprised I don't see a reference to the new Fox News poll having Trump ahead of Clinton but within the margin of error. I don't like seeing that. I would love to see polls indicating that Clinton is like 20 points ahead.

The polls I'll be watching for now are the CNN/ORC, ABC News/Washington Post, and NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls. That's because those are the three most highly rated polls among those we see a lot by 538. They're each rated "A-". The Fox News poll is rated "C+".

That doesn't mean I'm not concerned by seeing Trump up in it. I am. If nothing else he was down by 7 in that poll last month and is up by 3 now. I don't think there's any doubt that he's better off now than he was a month ago.

But I am now very interested in seeing what some of the polls I view as better than the Fox News poll say about exactly where things are.

[JohnStOnge]

Isn't voting in Oregon done via the mail these days? So many of these people could've voted weeks ago. And I don't think it's always been done via the mail, so comparing it to the past isn't apples to apples.

While I concede that Wikipedia can be wrong I'll be lazy and just refer to it. According to Wikipedia:

In the 2000 election cycle, Oregon for the first time used VBM in a Presidential Primary election and then a Presidential General election, with a 79 percent turnout.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elections ... on#History

"VBM" is "Vote by mail."

[JohnStOnge]

On the Trump has more votes than any Republican primary candidate ever thing: I'm not getting it. For one thing, as far as I can tell, Trump has gotten 11,266,422 votes in the Republican primary so far while George W. Bush got 12,034,676 during the 2000 Republican primaries.

The other thing is adjustment for US population increase. In 2000 the US population was 281,421,906. Now it's about 323,584,000. So if you adjust for population Bush's 2000 vote total is equivalent to 13,837,688 now.

More Trump bullshit.

[HI54UNI]

For everyone that is tired of JSO's blathering on and on and on and on and on and on about Trump I give you this

[JohnStOnge]

For everyone that is tired of JSO's blathering on and on and on and on and on and on about Trump I give you this

You know, believe it or not, something very important is going on right now. The United States population is behaving kind of like the population of 1930s Germany. That's a pretty frightening thing.

[HI54UNI]

For everyone that is tired of JSO's blathering on and on and on and on and on and on about Trump I give you this

You know, believe it or not, something very important is going on right now. The United States population is behaving kind of like the population of 1930s Germany. That's a pretty frightening thing.

You're right, something important is going on. Our nation is going to elect a dishonest, corrupt individual to the presidency. The next president will add more regulation, more government dependency, more war and dead young men and women. And you are going to vote for her.

[houndawg]

Surprised I don't see a reference to the new Fox News poll having Trump ahead of Clinton but within the margin of error. I don't like seeing that. I would love to see polls indicating that Clinton is like 20 points ahead.

The polls I'll be watching for now are the CNN/ORC, ABC News/Washington Post, and NBC News/Wall Street Journal polls. That's because those are the three most highly rated polls among those we see a lot by 538. They're each rated "A-". The Fox News poll is rated "C+".

That doesn't mean I'm not concerned by seeing Trump up in it. I am. If nothing else he was down by 7 in that poll last month and is up by 3 now. I don't think there's any doubt that he's better off now than he was a month ago.

But I am now very interested in seeing what some of the polls I view as better than the Fox News poll say about exactly where things are.

Don't nobody believe no part of nothing that comes out of Fox "news", John, you should know that by now..

[Baldy]

For everyone that is tired of JSO's blathering on and on and on and on and on and on about Trump I give you this

You know, believe it or not, something very important is going on right now. The United States population is behaving kind of like the population of 1930s Germany. That's a pretty frightening thing.

Nazi references.

JSO filled his swimming pool with Clinton Kool-Aid.

[kalm]

For everyone that is tired of JSO's blathering on and on and on and on and on and on about Trump I give you this

You know, believe it or not, something very important is going on right now. The United States population is behaving kind of like the population of 1930s Germany. That's a pretty frightening thing.

Really? We're in a massive post-world war (which we lost) hyperinflationary period? I suppose Obama is about to appoint Trump Chancellor.

[Ivytalk]

You know, believe it or not, something very important is going on right now. The United States population is behaving kind of like the population of 1930s Germany. That's a pretty frightening thing.

Really? We're in a massive post-world war (which we lost) hyperinflationary period? I suppose Obama is about to appoint Trump Chancellor.

Obama = Hindenburg

[Ivytalk]

For everyone that is tired of JSO's blathering on and on and on and on and on and on about Trump I give you this

You know, believe it or not, something very important is going on right now. The United States population is behaving kind of like the population of 1930s Germany. That's a pretty frightening thing.

What's really frightening, John, is failing to compliment HI5's picture and analogizing those glorious globes to the Weimar Republic.

[GannonFan]

For everyone that is tired of JSO's blathering on and on and on and on and on and on about Trump I give you this

You know, believe it or not, something very important is going on right now. The United States population is behaving kind of like the population of 1930s Germany. That's a pretty frightening thing.

I always shudder at historical references like this that betray the fact that the issuer of such a statement has a very poor recollection or just simply knowledge of past historical events. The rise of Trump is no significant way is similar to the rise of Nazism in interbellum (I just made that word up but it sounded cool so I went with it) Germany. You want to say Trump is like Berlusconi in Italy, then I'm with ya, but trying to compare Trump to Hitler is not only historically inaccurate, it's also intellectually lazy. For shame.

[Ibanez]

For everyone that is tired of JSO's blathering on and on and on and on and on and on about Trump I give you this

You know, believe it or not, something very important is going on right now. The United States population is behaving kind of like the population of 1930s Germany. That's a pretty frightening thing.

What? Our population is following a guy saying that all of our problems are because of the Jews? Or are you referring to the inflation. Perhaps just the nationalism? Or maybe you're referring to our population being fed up with the current political system.