Presidential election, 2016

[Eric the Green]

(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.

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.

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.

[Eric the Green]

Who says boomer presidential candidates can't dance?

[The Wonkette]

(09-30-2016, 01:46 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(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.

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.

[Eric the Green]

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/...128508508/

[playwrite]

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.

Our vote is about more than ourselves. It’s about one-person, one-vote and voting rights. It’s about preventing nuclear war. It’s about whether to employ diplomacy or resort to our baser instincts and destroy the planet. It’s about trying to reverse climate change. It is about the 99%. It is about jobs and livable wages. It’s about whether we have reproductive freedom at all. It is about whether there is a public education system left. It’s about protecting Medicare from being voucherized. It’s about protecting Social Security from those wanting to divert money into the stock market. We should have learned that lesson in 1929 and 2008. It is about making health care more available. It’s about curing diseases. It’s about whether we have prison reform, or keep rounding people up and destroying their lives for minor infractions. It’s about whether real policies get enacted at all, or whether we are at the whim of a tyrant. But, some think it is all about their ego, their virtue, their “pristine” idealism.

I was a Bernie supporter in the primary. I will be again after Election 2016. But I will not pretend that there aren’t huge differences between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Yet these narcissists are willing to put our nation at incredible risk in the name of their electoral “purity.” They care little if Trump and his band of neo-fascist supporters usher in a new authoritarianism never experienced in The United States of America. It’s OK if Trump manipulates fear to strip America of its Constitution. It’s OK if he detonates a nuclear weapon. It’s OK if Trump implicitly threatens to overthrow an election if he doesn’t get his way.

Jill Stein is NOT a presidential contender and never was. She may be smarter than Donald Trump, but she is just as unqualified. A town councilperson does not a presidential candidate make. But Stein supporters would have you believe that a lifetime of public service, yes service, work on behalf of children, and work to open up housing to all, is nothing. Diplomatic service is nothing. Serving in Congress is nothing. And work to bring health care, immunizations and medicine to the world’s poor, in which she takes nothing for herself, is now recast as somehow evil. Do they hear themselves? Thirty years of disproven propaganda has so deluded them that Hillary is “evil” that they never question whether they aren’t being useful pawns in the manipulation of the electorate by the far right.

But it balms superior egos. In the unlikely event that a third party succeeded it would need to be built from the ground up, not from the presidency down. But that would be too hard. It will be interesting to see how these same people shirk off efforts to build alternatives from the real grassroots, a hundred Zephyr Teachouts could make a real difference.

But the Big Lie gets repeated every four years: If only we just stick with whatever spoiler shows up that year, things could be different, no matter how far out and lacking in cred. Everything will be great. But their ignorance of the differences between a democratic republic and a parliamentary system is infantile. Third Parties have been playing this card for my entire (long) life. And still they hope, pray even, that there are enough dreamers to sing Kumbaya with them while we lose yet another election. They always have their “purity.” They will never admit they brought us George W Bush, the needless Iraq war and countless deaths. No, those things are not their fault, at all.

Their “purity” was more important than the environment they purport to protect, more important than lives lost to war, more important than the Constitution upended by Bush-Cheney.They delude themselves that President Obama and Hillary Clinton are authoritarians like Trump. They turn a blind eye to Trump’s ignorance, xenophobia, racism, misogyny, bullying, exhortations to violence. All of that, they excuse, and look the other way.

Yes, there are dozens upon dozens of ways Trump and Clinton differ. Indeed a chart delineating such differences is what launched the inundation of this site by supporters of Stein. 2016 is a real campaign with real alternatives and potentially devastating consequences should Donald Trump get his hand on the nuclear codes. His desire to wantonly upend hundreds of years of development, precedent, rule of law, support for infrastructure, and civil society threatens us all.

So, the continuing saga of Jill Stein’s incredible ego trip continues. Her Green Party supporters slog along pretending there isn’t a century of evidence that third parties cannot succeed in America with its non-parliamentary system. And those feigning that they are better than anyone else just cannot bring themselves to join us little people in the real world where only one of the two major candidates will win. And it cannot be Donald Trump.

[playwrite]

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.
Van Jones wasn't as sure, and I tend to agree with him on this one.
Speaking of small and big communications sins, Jones said, "The small sin is to interrupt all the time, and Kaine was guilty of that sin."
He continued, "But that's a small sin compared to the larger sin, which is to just lie."
"And what happened was you saw in real time essentially Pence invent a running mate and he just lied about you know what this guy stood for. The guy that Pence has as a running mate might get a bunch of votes."
"That guy's just not Donald Trump, so i think the fact fact-checking avalanche is about to fall on the head of Mike Pence to erase his gains tonight," he concluded.
You watch. As soon as the Clinton campaign starts rolling out the videos of Pence lying about what Trump said and did right next to Trump saying and doing those things, the wheels will come off the whole "Pence Won" train. Just wait and see.

And in less than 12 hours, a devastating new ad -
https://twitter.com/HillaryClinton/statu...7247114240
- 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.

All this said, Pence did pretty well too. I'm still uncertain whether Pence went in with a plan to toss Trump overboard or whether that's more how it came out in the moment. To the extent it was planned, Pence's mission seemed to be a simple message to GOP stalwarts: Do you see how good I could be if I weren't running with this jackass? The response from high profile Republicans seemed to be: We see, and it's killing us.
The fact that Pence got frustrated and created the "Mexican Thing" meme is is just an additional benefit for the Clinton campaign.
Pence has a decent amount to be happy about this morning. There are things conservatives can take heart from - largely finding someone in the campaign to feel good about. But none of them are things that do anything good for them in 2016. On that front, Kaine won pretty much hands down.

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.

[Eric the Green]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/5/...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%)

[Eric the Green]

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:

[pbrower2a]

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.

[Bob Butler 54]

(10-05-2016, 12:36 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: 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.

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.

[naf140230]

(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.

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.

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.

There is no knockout victory here, and besides, vice presidential debates don't affect the outcome of the election most of the time.

[Eric the Green]

(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.

[Bob Butler 54]

(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:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...mp/501161/

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.

[pbrower2a]

(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:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/arch...mp/501161/

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.

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.

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.

[Bob Butler 54]

(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?

[pbrower2a]

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.

[pbrower2a]

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.

[Odin]

(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:





I'll miss Vinny on the air!

https://www.facebook.com/Dodgers/videos/...128508508/

What a career THAT guy had!

[pbrower2a]

(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:





I'll miss Vinny on the air!

https://www.facebook.com/Dodgers/videos/...128508508/

What a career THAT guy had!

Uhh... Mays or Scully?

[pbrower2a]

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