Election 2016: Trump vs Clinton

[JohnStOnge]

The Republican establishment has taken for granted many conservative and moderate voters and these voters have gotten angrier and angrier. They've finally had enough of being ignored and it's their fault they voted for Trump?

The way I look at it is the Republican voters who should be criticized in scalding fashion. In recent years the Republicans got elected wanting to do certain things but if you understand the system you knew that there were limits to what they could do because there was a Democrat President and at the very least a sufficient proportion of Democrats in the Senate to filibuster.

So we came into this election season with a really good chance of having the Republicans FINALLY get into position to do some things. They have a number of really good potential general election Presidential candidates and if they pick a good one they could actually make gains in the House and the Senate. They can FINALLY do some of the things Republican voters want them to do!

But what happens? Republican voters pick about the WORST possible general election candidate available. They pick one that not even principled Republicans can support. AND they pick one that is likely to cause them to LOSE House and Senate seats.

It was a classic "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" behavior.

Well, I guess you can't say that for sure until things play out and we see what happens. But that sure is what it looks like right now. Any reasonable analysis of the situation suggests that Republican voters just picked the worst possible available candidate they could have picked.

[BDKJMU]

Did I mention that that's a really tacky looking hat?

And made in China!!

There are lots of cheap knockoffs made in China, Bangeldesh, etc. This one is made in America:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B01B8T4GI ... ref=plSrch

[JohnStOnge]

Yes the Trump hat was made in America and contributes to the argument that it's no wonder that production of such things is moving to other places. That is an awful looking hat. About as tacky looking as you can get.

[houndawg]

Why shouldn't they be taken for granted; we're talking about a hand-picked base of those dumb enough to believe that what is good for billionaires is good for them. I think its freaking hilarious.

That's a pretty harsh but accurate description of Hillary's supporters.

Yep them too. I was booted from a local "progressive" board that was actually an establishment site running the Inevitability of Hillary riff. Really got some noses out of joint reciting her voting record.

[YoUDeeMan]

Did I mention that that's a really tacky looking hat?

And made in China!!

dback...a lyin' piece of Hillary crap!


And he is OK with that!

[Ibanez]

CNN report today provides reason for some optimism. FBI Clinton e mail investigation reportedly nearing its end and US officials reportedly saying no evidence so far that Clinton knowingly violated the law.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/ ... index.html

Sounds like there's a good chance that she won't be charged. If that happens Trump can rail all he wants on that subject and she can just do the typical Clinton political Jujutsu. There they go again. Making a big deal out things and lo and behold when all is said and done there's nothing there. So on and so forth.

And if it goes the other way and they DO charge her the Democrats will have plenty of time to adjust and just about anybody they field should be able to beat Trump in the general election. Sanders is up on Trump by 13.4 percentage points in the real clear politics average right now and the latest one has him up 16.

There's a little more reason to be hopeful now that the admittedly evil Democrats will be able to put this even more evil Trump monster to bed.

More potentially good news: Just heard a talking head say that the Republicans have only lost among White women once since the 1970s (the one time was Clinton, BTW, and Obama lost among White women both times) but Trump is behind among White women.

Key word: willfully

Ignorance of the law doesn't spare you.


It'll spare her.

[houndawg]

The Republican establishment has taken for granted many conservative and moderate voters and these voters have gotten angrier and angrier. They've finally had enough of being ignored and it's their fault they voted for Trump?

The way I look at it is the Republican voters who should be criticized in scalding fashion. In recent years the Republicans got elected wanting to do certain things but if you understand the system you knew that there were limits to what they could do because there was a Democrat President and at the very least a sufficient proportion of Democrats in the Senate to filibuster.

So we came into this election season with a really good chance of having the Republicans FINALLY get into position to do some things. They have a number of really good potential general election Presidential candidates and if they pick a good one they could actually make gains in the House and the Senate. They can FINALLY do some of the things Republican voters want them to do!

But what happens? Republican voters pick about the WORST possible general election candidate available.They pick one that not even principled Republicans can support. AND they pick one that is likely to cause them to LOSE House and Senate seats.

It was a classic "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" behavior.

Well, I guess you can't say that for sure until things play out and we see what happens. But that sure is what it looks like right now. Any reasonable analysis of the situation suggests that Republican voters just picked the worst possible available candidate they could have picked.

That's what the Southern Strategy gets you.

[UNI88]

CNN report today provides reason for some optimism. FBI Clinton e mail investigation reportedly nearing its end and US officials reportedly saying no evidence so far that Clinton knowingly violated the law.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/05/politics/ ... index.html

Sounds like there's a good chance that she won't be charged. If that happens Trump can rail all he wants on that subject and she can just do the typical Clinton political Jujutsu. There they go again. Making a big deal out things and lo and behold when all is said and done there's nothing there. So on and so forth.

And if it goes the other way and they DO charge her the Democrats will have plenty of time to adjust and just about anybody they field should be able to beat Trump in the general election. Sanders is up on Trump by 13.4 percentage points in the real clear politics average right now and the latest one has him up 16.

There's a little more reason to be hopeful now that the admittedly evil Democrats will be able to put this even more evil Trump monster to bed.

More potentially good news: Just heard a talking head say that the Republicans have only lost among White women once since the 1970s (the one time was Clinton, BTW, and Obama lost among White women both times) but Trump is behind among White women.

Key word: willfully

Ignorance of the law doesn't spare you.

It'll spare her.

My thought/question exactly. Ignorance should not be an acceptable excuse for a high ranking member of our government. She should have known, her myriad of expert advisors should have known and told her. The buck should stop with her and she is responsible whether she "knew" or not. If "willfully" is her defense, is she qualified to be POTUS?

[UNI88]

The Republican establishment has taken for granted many conservative and moderate voters and these voters have gotten angrier and angrier. They've finally had enough of being ignored and it's their fault they voted for Trump?

The way I look at it is the Republican voters who should be criticized in scalding fashion. In recent years the Republicans got elected wanting to do certain things but if you understand the system you knew that there were limits to what they could do because there was a Democrat President and at the very least a sufficient proportion of Democrats in the Senate to filibuster.

So we came into this election season with a really good chance of having the Republicans FINALLY get into position to do some things. They have a number of really good potential general election Presidential candidates and if they pick a good one they could actually make gains in the House and the Senate. They can FINALLY do some of the things Republican voters want them to do!

But what happens? Republican voters pick about the WORST possible general election candidate available. They pick one that not even principled Republicans can support. AND they pick one that is likely to cause them to LOSE House and Senate seats.

It was a classic "snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" behavior.

Well, I guess you can't say that for sure until things play out and we see what happens. But that sure is what it looks like right now. Any reasonable analysis of the situation suggests that Republican voters just picked the worst possible available candidate they could have picked.

John, for a data driven "scientist" you sure do like to assume that you can see into the minds of other Republicans. How do you know that these voters were frustrated that the Republicans weren't able to accomplish Tea Party objectives? Trump's platform is far from being in lockstep with the Tea Party's. Based on Trump's talking points, I would argue that they're angry about the loss of jobs, shrinking middle class, government insiders enriching themselves and their friends while ignoring the needs of the people they were elected to represent.

Yes Republicans were unable to pass veto and filibuster proof legislation but how much did they try? The Tea Partiers like Cruz were so busy undermining Boehner and now Ryan that they've essentially split the party in two in Congress so there is no majority. Whose fault is that?

[∞∞∞]

JSO, if you genuinely believe in conservatism, you'd vote for Trump. As a liberal myself, I'm happy if you vote for the Democratic candidate, but Trump will only be around 4-8 years if he's elected. Obviously the same with Clinton, but only one of these candidates is going to shape the Supreme Court and affect the landscape of the US for a generation to come. Obviously I want my children to grow up in a liberal United States so I'm ok with that, but I know you're not one that wants to see conservatives lose the courts.

[houndawg]

JSO, if you genuinely believe in conservatism, you'd vote for Trump. As a liberal myself, I'm happy if you vote for the Democratic candidate, but Trump will only be around 4-8 years if he's elected. Obviously the same with Clinton, but only one of these candidates is going to shape the Supreme Court and affect the landscape of the US for a generation to come. Obviously I want my children to grow up in a liberal United States so I'm ok with that, but I know you're not one that wants to see conservatives lose the courts.

just what we need, a Supreme Court occupied by Monsanto executives.

[Ibanez]

Key word: willfully

Ignorance of the law doesn't spare you.

It'll spare her.

My thought/question exactly. Ignorance should not be an acceptable excuse for a high ranking member of our government. She should have known, her myriad of expert advisors should have known and told her. The buck should stop with her and she is responsible whether she "knew" or not. If "willfully" is her defense, is she qualified to be POTUS?

If the FBI comes out and says that she didn't break the law or her NDA, I'll know this is all a sham.

[houndawg]

My thought/question exactly. Ignorance should not be an acceptable excuse for a high ranking member of our government. She should have known, her myriad of expert advisors should have known and told her. The buck should stop with her and she is responsible whether she "knew" or not. If "willfully" is her defense, is she qualified to be POTUS?

If the FBI comes out and says that she didn't break the law or her NDA, I'll know this is all a sham.

Won't happen. CID said the FBI director is the type to let the chips fall where they may, politics be damned.

[Ibanez]

If the FBI comes out and says that she didn't break the law or her NDA, I'll know this is all a sham.

Won't happen. CID said the FBI director is the type to let the chips fall where they may, politics be damned.

And he is...he won't let politics get in the way.


The DOJ, on the other hand...

[houndawg]

Won't happen. CID said the FBI director is the type to let the chips fall where they may, politics be damned.

And he is...he won't let politics get in the way.


The DOJ, on the other hand...

Are you predicting some resignations?

[Ibanez]

And he is...he won't let politics get in the way.


The DOJ, on the other hand...

Are you predicting some resignations?

That implies someone is held accountable for their actions.

[houndawg]

Are you predicting some resignations?

That implies someone is held accountable for their actions.

And if not the FBI director will resign because he don't do no politics?

[kalm]

Paul Ryan:

"I'm just not ready yet to support Trump."

"What this party needs is unity."

[Ibanez]

That implies someone is held accountable for their actions.

And if not the FBI director will resign because he don't do no politics?

If he's a man of his word, he would.

[DSUrocks07]

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

[OL FU]

“I would borrow, knowing that if the economy crashed, you could make a deal.” Did Trump really say that. If he did this is the best example so far that he has no idea. We are not Argentina (although we may be headed that way) we are not Trump Casinos or Trump steaks or Trump hair products. Want to see the world economy crash, implement that policy.


Am I taking his comments out of context.

[HI54UNI]

Paul Ryan:

"I'm just not ready yet to support Trump."

"What this party needs is unity."

Paul Ryan not liking Trump = another reason to like Trump.

Also laughing at the Republicans that were so worried about Trump signing a loyalty pledge.

[JohnStOnge]

JSO, if you genuinely believe in conservatism, you'd vote for Trump. As a liberal myself, I'm happy if you vote for the Democratic candidate, but Trump will only be around 4-8 years if he's elected. Obviously the same with Clinton, but only one of these candidates is going to shape the Supreme Court and affect the landscape of the US for a generation to come. Obviously I want my children to grow up in a liberal United States so I'm ok with that, but I know you're not one that wants to see conservatives lose the courts.

The Supreme Court is the biggest argument for going ahead and voting for Trump. But I believe that for the long terms Conservatism will best be better served if Trump loses. In fact it'd be best if he loses really, really badly. I don't think he's a Conservative but as the Republican nominee he will be perceived as such. I think that him getting elected President will set the Conservative cause back by decades.

If the approach he took to get to this point succeeds a horrible precedent will be set.

Besides, there is a point at which honor dictates that one does not support a completely unacceptable person for a job like that. I have said before that I think he is a Hitler type personality. And I mean that. I'm not saying he could do what Hitler did. There are controls in place to prevent that. But you don't vote for somebody like that because you're worried about the Supreme Court.

[JohnStOnge]

Obviously things can change but lots of things but good starting points for Clinton in that CNN poll that came out the other day.

Some examples:

No Democrat has won the majority of the White vote in the Presidential election since at least as far back as Nixon vs. Humphrey in 1968. McCain beat Obama by 55% to 43% and Romney beat him by 59% to 39% among Whites. The CNN poll has Clinton and Trump tied at 47% to 47% among Whites.

Obama beat McCain by 56% to 43% and beat Romney by 55% to 44% among women. The CNN poll has Clinton up on Trump among women by 61% to 35%.

Here's a key one, I think: I'll just refer to Romney but the McCain election was similar. Obama beat Romney by 86% to 11% among Liberals while Romney beat Obama by 82% to 17% among Conservatives. The CNN poll shows Liberals favoring Clinton by 85% to 8% and Conservatives favoring Trump by 66% to 28%. You can definitely see the effect of the fact that a substantial number of Conservatives have a distaste for Trump there.

Hopefully all that will hold up. One thing that can't be ignored is that Trump is running against a very weak Democrat candidate. He's not taking on somebody like Obama. And the e mail thing is still out there.

[JohnStOnge]

That's what the Southern Strategy gets you.

Oh...you reminded me of a very interesting thing in that CNN poll. It has Clinton up by 52% to 44% over Trump in the SOUTH.