Presidential election, 2016

[Ragnarök_62]

(09-21-2016, 05:21 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: the Washington Compost,

I like it.   You forgot the New York Crimes. Puppy training's too good for that rag.

[Eric the Green]

(09-21-2016, 11:20 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: En Tejas hay mucha gente Latina, quienes no van a votar por Trump.

ESPERO QUE SI!

[pbrower2a]

I could play some games with newspaper names

the Detritus News, the Detritus Free Press

the Dallas Moronic News

the St. Louis Pus-Discharge

Naw.

[Anthony '58]

(09-22-2016, 04:08 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Drumpf is now spewing shyte about deregulating energy production.

One of the reasons for the current governmental push for energy production is war by other means against the Russians. We need to keep the prices low.

By ending this, Drumpf would be scratching his buddy Putin's back.

And why shouldn't we scratch Putin's back?

He's scratching our back in Syria - and Israel's back, too (last November, Russian, Syrian, and Israeli military experts held a three-way pow-wow at an undisclosed location), and also in Crimea (the Crimean Tatars were one of al Qaeda's best customers) and that region generally (the Ukrainian neo-fascists have long had an entente cordiale with Hamas).

All we have to do is keep both Russia and China at least neutral in the New Cold War against radical Islam, and we've got this, so to speak.

[pbrower2a]

How long will it be before Vladimir Putin asks for Alaska back?

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-23-2016, 07:50 AM)pbrower2a Wrote: How long will it be before Vladimir Putin asks for Alaska back?

Would he have to keep Sarah?

[pbrower2a]

Before I leave for the weekend:


Hillary Clinton (D) vs. Donald Trump ®:





Tie -- white

60% or more -- saturation 8
55-59.9%        --  saturation 6
50-54.9%        --  saturation 5
45-49.9%, lead 8% or more -- saturation 4
45-49.9%, lead 4-7.9% -- saturation 3
45-49.9%, lead 1-3.9%  -- saturation 2

Any lead with less than 45% will be considered unusable.  




The three-way map:

Hillary Clinton (D) vs. Donald Trump ® vs. Gary Johnson (L):

[Eric the Green]

(09-23-2016, 07:19 AM)Anthony 58 Wrote:

(09-22-2016, 04:08 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Drumpf is now spewing shyte about deregulating energy production.

One of the reasons for the current governmental push for energy production is war by other means against the Russians. We need to keep the prices low.

By ending this, Drumpf would be scratching his buddy Putin's back.

And why shouldn't we scratch Putin's back?

He's scratching our back in Syria - and Israel's back, too (last November, Russian, Syrian, and Israeli military experts held a three-way pow-wow at an undisclosed location), and also in Crimea (the Crimean Tatars were one of al Qaeda's best customers) and that region generally (the Ukrainian neo-fascists have long had an entente cordiale with Hamas).

All we have to do is keep both Russia and China at least neutral in the New Cold War against radical Islam, and we've got this, so to speak.

Putin is attacking us behind our back n Syria; bombing our allies, taking advantage of our reluctance to push his status there and in the world. Meeting and strategizing with the worst dictator in the world? Not good. Very bad. He usurped control in Crimea in a totally illegitimate way. He needs to be stood up to, not scratched.

[pbrower2a]

Hillary Clinton didn't win this debate; Donald Trump lost it. He showed himself arrogant, doctrinaire, and elitist.

[Eric the Green]

Trump vs. Clinton vs. Other poll averages from 270towin

http://www.270towin.com/2016-polls-clinton-trump/

[Eric the Green]

http://www.270towin.com/map-images/clint...ctoral-map

[Eric the Green]

Now-cast: "Who would win the election if it were held today"

based on 538

http://www.270towin.com/content/electora...-forecasts

[Bob Butler 54]

(05-18-2016, 07:28 AM)Odin Wrote: Boston men jailed for Trump-inspired hate crime attack

Expect thugs like this to have full reign to whatever they want under a President Trump.  

The article doesn't say it explicitly, but it looks like the thugs were jailed on state charges rather than federal.  I don't think President Trump could have pardoned them.

I don't know that he would if he could.  He walks the edge of the line.  He wants the votes and the emotion of the racists.  He generally shy's one 'you misunderstood what I said' away from explicit hate speech though.  I don't know that he would go as far as endorsing all out black shirt racial violence.

We'll see if he denounces the liberal Massachusetts court system and its refusal to recognize metal pipes as a legitimate tool of free speech.

[pbrower2a]

It may be troublesome, but I may have a fresh cause for a restart.  Monday's debate performance by Hillary Clinton was understated, civil, and topical without going for the kill. Donald Trump's debate performance was simply execrable.

I'm going binary only. If Gary Johnson were to have a chance at a late-season charge, he has yet to show it.  

This is time for a nearly-complete restart. Nearly complete, because old polls for some states may be all that we will ever have. Some states (and the District of Columbia) just don't get polled often. Begin by clearing all results for states except those for which little credible polling exists  and whose electoral character is a lock. If there is any controversy about polling I now show nothing until I see a new poll.

Multitudes who had tuned out Donald Trump for a while have gotten the chance to see him. They had to if they were to see Hillary Clinton in the debate.

States (and DC)  whose prior results look uncontroversial include

AL AK AR CA CT DE DC HI ID IL IN KS KY LA MD MA MT NE (except for the second congressional district) NJ ND NY OK OR RI TN VT WA WV WY

All other states go blank (gray) now.

Even Texas and Utah hold some controversies. Anything close before the debate will not be shown here. Afterward? Of course.

Hillary Clinton (D) vs. Donald Trump ®:





Tie -- white

60% or more -- saturation 8
55-59.9%        --  saturation 6
50-54.9%        --  saturation 5
45-49.9%, lead 8% or more -- saturation 4
45-49.9%, lead 4-7.9% -- saturation 3
45-49.9%, lead 1-3.9%  -- saturation 2

Hillary Clinton (D) 182
Donald Trump ®  94

Since the debate (in which Donald Trump performed catastrophically), 195 electoral votes (those in Michigan, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, and Florida) have been accounted for in polls (I saw one for California, and it was a slight gain for Hillary Clinton in a sure-thing state) -- all show their states going to Hillary Clinton, if not above the margin of error in Florida.

Donald Trump has no way of winning the Presidential election barring a huge change in the realities in this Presidential election.


Hillary Clinton (D) vs. Donald Trump ®:





Tie -- white

60% or more -- saturation 8
55-59.9%        --  saturation 7
50-54.9%        --  saturation 6
45-49.9%, lead 8% or more -- saturation 4
45-49.9%, lead 4-7.9% -- saturation 3
45-49.9%, lead 1-3.9%  -- saturation 2


Hillary Clinton (D) 289
Donald Trump ®  94

[Eric the Green]

Trump could have a chance if some of the smaller swing states that have trended in his favor, stay that way.

If he wins these Obama swing states:
OH 18
FL 29
NC 15 (Romney in 2012, but trending more Democratic)
CO 9
NV 6
IA 6

And these weak Romney states:
GA 16
AZ 11
MO 10

And these other red states:
SC 9
WV 5
KY 8
TN 11
IN 11
AL 9
MS 6
LA 8
Ark. 6
TX 38
OK 7
KS 6
NE 5
ND & SD 6
MT 3
WY 3
ID 4
AK 3
UT 6

Then he wins 274 electoral votes, without winning any of the Obama industrial midwest states except purple Ohio, where he now has a slim lead.

Right now FL is slightly favoring Hillary, and NC is dead tied. CO is giving mixed signals, while NV and most of all IA are trending Trump. If national polls swing toward Hillary, as they may be starting to do, then these states may also swing to Hillary. There is a lag in state polls.

[pbrower2a]

The Dallas Morning News, the Arizona Republic, the Manchester Union-Leader and the Detroit News, four very conservative newspapers, have endorsed either Hillary Clinton or Gary Johnson, breaking a pattern going back seventy years or more. USA Today  has never endorsed a Presidential nominee in its history until today.

Now comes one of the most devastating possible critiques of a Presidential nominee.

Quote:The Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. We're doing it now.



(Photo: John Moore, Getty Images)

In the 34-year history of USA TODAY, the Editorial Board has never taken sides in the presidential race. Instead, we’ve expressed opinions about the major issues and haven’t presumed to tell our readers, who have a variety of priorities and values, which choice is best for them. Because every presidential race is different, we revisit our no-endorsement policy every four years. We’ve never seen reason to alter our approach. Until now.
This year, the choice isn’t between two capable major party nominees who happen to have significant ideological differences. This year, one of the candidates — Republican nominee Donald Trump — is, by unanimous consensus of the Editorial Board, unfit for the presidency.

From the day he declared his candidacy 15 months ago through this week’s first presidential debate, Trump has demonstrated repeatedly that he lacks the temperament, knowledge, steadiness and honesty that America needs from its presidents.

Whether through indifference or ignorance, Trump has betrayed fundamental commitments made by all presidents since the end of World War II. These commitments include unwavering support for NATO allies, steadfast opposition to Russian aggression, and the absolute certainty that the United States will make good on its debts. He has expressed troubling admiration for authoritarian leaders and scant regard for constitutional protections.

We’ve been highly critical of the GOP nominee in a number of previous editorials. With early voting already underway in several states and polls showing a close race, now is the time to spell out, in one place, the reasons Trump should not be president:

He is erratic. Trump has been on so many sides of so many issues that attempting to assess his policy positions is like shooting at a moving target. A list prepared by NBC details 124 shifts by Trump on 20 major issues since shortly before he entered the race. He simply spouts slogans and outcomes (he’d replace Obamacare with “something terrific”) without any credible explanations of how he’d achieve them.

He is ill-equipped to be commander in chief. Trump’s foreign policy pronouncements typically range from uninformed to incoherent. It’s not just Democrats who say this. Scores of Republican national security leaders have signed an extraordinary open letter calling Trump’s foreign policy vision “wildly inconsistent and unmoored in principle.” In a Wall Street Journal column this month, Robert Gates, the highly respected former Defense secretary who served presidents of both parties over a half-century, described Trump as “beyond repair.”

He traffics in prejudice. From the very beginning, Trump has built his campaign on appeals to bigotry and xenophobia, whipping up resentment against Mexicans, Muslims and migrants. His proposals for mass deportations and religious tests are unworkable and contrary to America’s ideals.
Trump has stirred racist sentiments in ways that can’t be erased by his belated and clumsy outreach to African Americans. His attacks on an Indiana-born federal judge of Mexican heritage fit “the textbook definition of a racist comment,” according to House Speaker Paul Ryan, the highest-ranking elected official in the Republican Party. And for five years, Trump fanned the absurd “birther” movement that falsely questioned the legitimacy of the nation’s first black president.

His business career is checkered. Trump has built his candidacy on his achievements as a real estate developer and entrepreneur. It’s a shaky scaffold, starting with a 1973 Justice Department suit against Trump and his father for systematically discriminating against blacks in housing rentals. (The Trumps fought the suit but later settled on terms that were viewed as a government victory.) Trump’s companies have had some spectacular financial successes, but this track record is marred by six bankruptcy filings, apparent misuse of the family’s charitable foundation, and allegations by Trump University customers of fraud. A series of investigative articles published by the USA TODAY Network found that Trump has been involved in thousands of lawsuits over the past three decades, including at least 60 that involved small businesses and contract employees who said they were stiffed. So much for being a champion of the little guy.

He isn’t leveling with the American people. Is Trump as rich as he says? No one knows, in part because, alone among major party presidential candidates for the past four decades, he refuses to release his tax returns. Nor do we know whether he has paid his fair share of taxes, or the extent of his foreign financial entanglements.

He speaks recklessly. In the days after the Republican convention, Trump invited Russian hackers to interfere with an American election by releasing Hillary Clinton’s emails, and he raised the prospect of “Second Amendment people” preventing the Democratic nominee from appointing liberal justices. It’s hard to imagine two more irresponsible statements from one presidential candidate.

He has coarsened the national dialogue. Did you ever imagine that a presidential candidate would discuss the size of his genitalia during a nationally televised Republican debate? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine a presidential candidate, one who avoided service in the military, would criticize Gold Star parents who lost a son in Iraq? Neither did we. Did you ever imagine you’d see a presidential candidate mock a disabled reporter? Neither did we. Trump’s inability or unwillingness to ignore criticism raises the specter of a president who, like Richard Nixon, would create enemies’ lists and be consumed with getting even with his critics.

He’s a serial liar. Although polls show that Clinton is considered less honest and trustworthy than Trump, it’s not even a close contest. Trump is in a league of his own when it comes to the quality and quantity of his misstatements. When confronted with a falsehood, such as his assertion that he was always against the Iraq War, Trump’s reaction is to use the Big Lie technique of repeating it so often that people begin to believe it.

We are not unmindful of the issues that Trump’s campaign has exploited: the disappearance of working-class jobs; excessive political correctness; the direction of the Supreme Court; urban unrest and street violence; the rise of the Islamic State terrorist group; gridlock in Washington and the influence of moneyed interests. All are legitimate sources of concern.

Nor does this editorial represent unqualified support for Hillary Clinton, who has her own flaws (though hers are far less likely to threaten national security or lead to a constitutional crisis). The Editorial Board does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement.

Some of us look at her command of the issues, resilience and long record of public service — as first lady, U.S. senator and secretary of State — and believe she’d serve the nation ably as its president.

Other board members have serious reservations about Clinton’s sense of entitlement, her lack of candor and her extreme carelessness in handling classified information.

Where does that leave us? Our bottom-line advice for voters is this: Stay true to your convictions. That might mean a vote for Clinton, the most plausible alternative to keep Trump out of the White House. Or it might mean a third-party candidate. Or a write-in. Or a focus on down-ballot candidates who will serve the nation honestly, try to heal its divisions, and work to solve its problems.

Whatever you do, however, resist the siren song of a dangerous demagogue. By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump.

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.

Any questions?

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-29-2016, 11:06 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Now comes one of the most devastating possible critiques of a Presidential nominee.

Perhaps not the most devastating critique possible, but they really gave it their best shot. It will do.

[Odin]

(09-26-2016, 11:19 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: There are some idiotic things the Leftists do which fuel the fire of Trumpism. Here are some examples:

1) Over use of Temporary Protected Status. Some Lefty Hispanic legislator is trying to get TPS approved for Ecuadorians due to an earthquake. That's crap. The timing couldn't be worse. This will send some undecideds into the Trump camp.

2) Here in the Bay Area, there are crazy ideas at times. There are two initiatives on the ballot in SF this November among the twenty something initiatives that stand out as insane. One would lower the voting age for municipal elections to 16. The other would allow non Citizens to vote in school board elections - not sure about school bonds. I get what the local left want here. They want to open the process to more people. But really ... kids? Non citizens (some of whom are illegals)? I also get that we live in a bubble here, and part of the local pride is to do things that are thumbs in the eyes of supposed Fly Over red necks. Still ... do we really need this sort of insanity? It immediately becomes PR that the Trumpistas will use to enlist people to their camp. There are many moderates and even Leftists in other parts of the country who would find the crazy Bay Area "thumbs in the eyes of the gap teethed" a step too far, and when the Trumpistas point it out, they rise in stature.

These are but two examples of ultimately destructive Leftist behaviors that, while doing zero in the grand scheme of things, give those who oppose the Left lots of talking points.

TIL that the movement to lower the voting age is still a thing. Back when I was in high school the whole "Youth Rights" thing was very popular but dropped off as the first half of the Millennials entered adulthood. I used to be completely for a 16yo voting age, but now as a 30yo I understand just how stupid teenagers are.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-30-2016, 12:33 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: The best I've seen thus far. Non partisan, and 100% morally driven. Anyone who is sane will heed this advice.

Definitely a well written piece I agree with entirely. If there is something there I haven't written, I've thought it, or now wish I had.

But I also recently watched a bit of video where a CNN reporter with cameraman was walking around a Trump gathering the day after the first debate. Most every one there who wasn't left on CNN's cutting room floor seemed sincerely and intensely convinced that Trump won the debate.

People have a truly amazing ability to hear what they want to hear, to be convinced of what they are already convinced. While it may seem to many that anyone vaguely sane will reject Trump, this is only true if a large chunk of the United States is not sane.

[The Wonkette]

(09-29-2016, 04:07 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: Trump could have a chance if some of the smaller swing states that have trended in his favor, stay that way.

If he wins these Obama swing states:
OH 18
FL 29
NC 15 (Romney in 2012, but trending more Democratic)
CO 9
NV 6
IA 6

And these weak Romney states:
GA 16
AZ 11
MO 10

And these other red states:
SC 9
WV 5
KY 8
TN 11
IN 11
AL 9
MS 6
LA 8
Ark. 6
TX 38
OK 7
KS 6
NE 5
ND & SD 6
MT 3
WY 3
ID 4
AK 3
UT 6

Then he wins 274 electoral votes, without winning any of the Obama industrial midwest states except purple Ohio, where he now has a slim lead.

Right now FL is slightly favoring Hillary, and NC is dead tied. CO is giving mixed signals, while NV and most of all IA are trending Trump. If national polls swing toward Hillary, as they may be starting to do, then these states may also swing to Hillary. There is a lag in state polls.

He'd have to win ALL of those States, correct? That is quite a tall order.