Presidential election, 2016 - Printable Version +- Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory (http://generational-theory.com/forum) +-- Forum: Fourth Turning Forums (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-1.html) +--- Forum: Current Events (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-34.html) +---- Forum: General Political Discussion (http://generational-theory.com/forum/forum-15.html) +---- Thread: Presidential election, 2016 (/thread-24.html) |
RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Eric the Green - 09-30-2016 (09-30-2016, 01:34 PM)The Wonkette Wrote:(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.He'd have to win ALL of those States, correct? That is quite a tall order. Maybe so, but it's not a tall order to win all but the top 6 on the list. The majority in those states would vote for a Republican no matter WHO it is. RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Eric the Green - 09-30-2016 Who says boomer presidential candidates can't dance? RE: Presidential election, 2016 - The Wonkette - 10-01-2016 (09-30-2016, 01:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:Yes, but winning all but the top 6, plus even as many as five of the top 6 makes him John McCain or Mitt Romney. Close but no cigar.(09-30-2016, 01:34 PM)The Wonkette Wrote: He'd have to win ALL of those States, correct? That is quite a tall order.Maybe so, but it's not a tall order to win all but the top 6 on the list. The majority in those states would vote for a Republican no matter WHO it is. RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Eric the Green - 10-03-2016 If the red blue conflict was like a baseball rivalry, it might end up like this: I'll miss Vinny on the air! https://www.facebook.com/Dodgers/videos/10154853128508508/ RE: Presidential election, 2016 - playwrite - 10-05-2016 Very well-said about those voting 3rd party - Jill Stein, Her Supporters and the Unbearable Lightness of Being Quote:“I am not so narcissistic to say I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton,” said ultra liberal Angela Davis recently. Nor am I. But it is time to admit that to support a third-party candidate in America is essentially a narcissistic act. RE: Presidential election, 2016 - playwrite - 10-05-2016 VP Debate - the trap was set and sprung last night. Out of all the talking heads gleeful with a Pence 'win' and being the 2020 GOP contender, it looks like only one was smart enough to figure out what actually had happened - Van Jones On Pence: 'He Invented A Running Mate And He Just Lied' Quote:CNN's pundit panel was pretty unanimous that Mike Pence won the debate, because he didn't interrupt and wasn't as dogged as Kaine. And in less than 12 hours, a devastating new ad - https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/status/783645247247114240 - going viral, that not only remind us of Trump's insanity but will forever taint Pence as the slick lying empty suit that he is - so much for 2020. More here - Mission Accomplished Quote:With the dawn of a new day we can see one thing clearly, Tim Kaine went into the debate with one mission: force a week of rehashing and relitigation of basically every lie, crazy idea and toxic rant we've heard from Donald Trump over the last year and a half. Whether he made ignore the attack, deny the attacks or agree with the attacks didn't really matter. As it happened, he got one and two. Here's the Clinton campaign's rapid response video lining up every Kaine claim, Pence denial and Trump video saying it. It's a classic Pence Said, Videotape Said thing. Everybody now digs into to see who's telling the truth. It's not just that the Clinton campaign can count on the stupidity of the GOP to fall into their traps; it's the media that plays the patsy facilitators as they stumble around with their false equivalency and need for a horse race. No wonder GOP insiders are so scared of Clinton. RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Eric the Green - 10-05-2016 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/5/1578042/-Debate-Kaine-79-True-Pence-31-PolitiFact PolitiFact evaluated 32 statements made by Kaine and Pence last night during the VP debate. Of 19 Kaine statements checked by PolitiFact, 15 were True or Mostly True (79%); Four of Pence's 13 statements were True or Mostly True (31%) RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Eric the Green - 10-05-2016 At the VP Debate, Mike Pence tried really, really hard to deny pretty much everything Donald Trump has said and done. Let's replay the tape: RE: Presidential election, 2016 - pbrower2a - 10-05-2016 Pence won on points; Kaine ripped Trump effectively even if he left Pence alone. Trump is on the top of the Reactionary ticket; Pence is a comparative afterthought. Pence could not defend Trump effectively. Kaine lost the skirmish but set a bigger trap for Trump, showing that some of Trump's positions were too extreme even for Pence (no moderate, by the way) to stomach. RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Bob Butler 54 - 10-05-2016 (10-05-2016, 12:36 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Pence won on points; Kaine ripped Trump effectively even if he left Pence alone. The sense I have is of two campaigns pursuing different voter groups and using different tactics which each might be more appropriate for the voters they are seeking. Each convinced their already convinced. Pence might have roused the emotion of his convinced more effectively. Kaine hammered some critical points to those who believe in fact checking. I suspect they both did what they went in trying to do. RE: Presidential election, 2016 - naf140230 - 10-05-2016 (10-05-2016, 12:42 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(10-05-2016, 12:36 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Pence won on points; Kaine ripped Trump effectively even if he left Pence alone. There is no knockout victory here, and besides, vice presidential debates don't affect the outcome of the election most of the time. RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Eric the Green - 10-05-2016 (10-05-2016, 12:36 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Pence won on points; Kaine ripped Trump effectively even if he left Pence alone. I think it's more accurate to say that Kaine won on debate points, but Pence may have won on style, because he was less anxious and more composed while Kaine interrupted too often near the beginning of the debate. RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Bob Butler 54 - 10-05-2016 (10-05-2016, 06:14 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Another almost-unprecedented endorsement of HRC. For the 3rd time in its history, Atlantic endorses a Presidential candidate: You know, when editors of major publications decide to be clear and succinct, they can use the English language really well. I was mildly impressed by the USA Today version, but The Atlantic said what has been said repeatedly quite well. The Atlantic Wrote:Donald Trump, on the other hand, has no record of public service and no qualifications for public office. His affect is that of an infomercial huckster; he traffics in conspiracy theories and racist invective; he is appallingly sexist; he is erratic, secretive, and xenophobic; he expresses admiration for authoritarian rulers, and evinces authoritarian tendencies himself. He is easily goaded, a poor quality for someone seeking control of America’s nuclear arsenal. He is an enemy of fact-based discourse; he is ignorant of, and indifferent to, the Constitution; he appears not to read. RE: Presidential election, 2016 - pbrower2a - 10-05-2016 (10-05-2016, 07:48 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote:(10-05-2016, 06:53 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(10-05-2016, 06:14 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Another almost-unprecedented endorsement of HRC. For the 3rd time in its history, Atlantic endorses a Presidential candidate: We have a regeneracy if Donald Trump goes down to defeat by a 10% or greater margin, and Republicans lose both Houses of Congress. Such suggests that America has rejected both the fascist economy of the Corporate State (government by lobbyists) and the lure of fascistic violence as a political tool. Is this the death of conservatism? Hardly. Democrats are winning over some people (middle-class minorities) whose demographics suggest that they should be conservative on taxes and spending -- and culture. Conservatism will revive, but with an emphasis on small business as the economic heroes, with a rejection of violence, and with the desire for some ethnic and religious concord. RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Bob Butler 54 - 10-05-2016 (10-05-2016, 07:48 PM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: Call me naive but all of this has a Regeneracy feel to it. Now, the fly in the ointment will be the Trump supporters and other fringe elements. In order to truly form up the Regeneracy, some fraction of the fringe elements need to be won back into the emerging new coalition, which clearly transcends the legacy boundaries of the Democratic and Republican Parties. Back 20 years ago when I was a Clinton hater, I never imagined I would be sitting here with my own plan to vote for HRC meanwhile witnessing the amazing sequence of events now unfolding. I share your hopes of regeneracy and fears of naivety. Trump has made a mess of the Republicans, at least at the presidential level. Has he dealt a fatal blow, or can something like the Reagan Bush Bush coalition stay together? The willingness to use the filibuster as a routine tools remains problematic. Traditionally, filibusters were rare. A majority could rule. Of late, the filibuster combined with the veto has been used to prevent most significant changes. A regeneracy would seem to require a filibuster proof majority in both houses of Congress, a change in the rules of order, or a step back from the extreme filibuster obstructionism of recent years. I've seen the simple racist explanation that many Republicans could not tolerate the idea that the first black president be seen as a success. Will there be a similar sexist desire directed towards the first female president? Has the decades old Republican demonization of Hillary given us any reason to expect otherwise? So I'm not ready to celebrate the regeneracy yet. The Republicans are badly messed up right now, at least at the top of the ticket. The failure of their ideas could become obvious enough to effect the state and local races. Who knows? RE: Presidential election, 2016 - pbrower2a - 10-05-2016 We need to limit the number of filibusters (five per Congress?), making their use gambles. I want those who use them to obstruct legislation as a specific tool for objectionable legislation and not as a tool for obstructing everything. RE: Presidential election, 2016 - pbrower2a - 10-05-2016 Rachel Maddow tells us that Atlantic Monthly has endorsed Presidential candidates only three times since its establishment in 1857: in 1860, Abraham Lincoln, for standing up to slave-owning interests in 1964 for Lyndon Johnson, rejecting the reckless rhetoric of Barry Goldwater in 2016 for Hillary Clinton due to the extreme inadequacy of Donald Trump I would endorse the opponent of Donald Trump even if he were largely liberal, offering contradictory promises that could only work against each other except to bleed the Treasury, and if his foreign policy were to sell out American allies to a foreign Great Power (such was the rap on George McGovern). Here is someone who has made much of the conspiracy theory that Barack Obama was not born in the USA long after such is close to ending as relevance. Sorry folks -- I prefer the Reagan foreign policy to the McGovern policy. Donald Trump is far to the Left of the American mainstream of American foreign policy from Gerald Ford to Barack Obama. I never thought that I would be defending Ronald Reagan in a Presidential election. I do now. Clinton/Kaine 2-16 may not be perfect, but Donald Trump is perfectly awful as a candidate. RE: Presidential election, 2016 - Odin - 10-06-2016 (10-03-2016, 05:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the red blue conflict was like a baseball rivalry, it might end up like this: What a career THAT guy had! RE: Presidential election, 2016 - pbrower2a - 10-06-2016 (10-06-2016, 06:49 AM)Odin Wrote:(10-03-2016, 05:50 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: If the red blue conflict was like a baseball rivalry, it might end up like this: Uhh... Mays or Scully? RE: Presidential election, 2016 - pbrower2a - 10-07-2016 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) 335 Donald Trump ® 132 (in white) ties -- 27 |