You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Well, betting companies don't care only about odds, they also have to factor in the amount of bets. And that's based on what people think/hope, not actual odds. If there was a surge for one candidate or the other, which seems likely with how the media are portraying Hillary as winner already, they would adjust their odds even if it was still 50/50 of happening. It's an equation combining the two.
The Brexit affair should be a reminder how wrong these pro's can be. Not that you can blame them with how diversified society has become.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
misterID wrote:"83 percent say economic benefits are skewed to the rich
66 percent say they don't apply for minimum-wage jobs because the pay is too low
The unemployed are spending just 11.7 hours a week looking for work.
More than half — 51 percent — say they haven't had a job interview since 2014."These are issues for Republicans. What you're quoting here is what the Republicans are responsible for. With the house and senate, where has been a real bill to address this? They certainly have not raised minimum wage. They have not stopped corporate welfare. They have not implemented an outsourcing tax...because they are against all of these things. Trump wants to LOWER the minimum wage. We're paying republican salaries to literally obstruct, do nothing, and in Ted Cruz's case, read Doctor Seuss on the senate floor. We almost had the grand bargain, but republicans fucked it up... A bill that would have given them a victory... But they decided to become the party of no instead and make Obama a one term president.
Omg no. Dude, Clinton was president when this shit started. Holy crap are you fucking ignorant. All you go is blame republicans for everything. Everything.
Educate yourself. Learn something. Maybe you can vote for someone that will try to help you instead of trying to hold you down if you do.
Child, please. Grown ups are talking...
BTW, Polly, I gave you a history on Clinton's presidency and how Bush fucked it, like raiding entitlements that were in a surplus to pay for his tax plan, but... You don't like facts, or educating yourself. Take care.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
I think Pollux is just setting up his inevitable conspiracy theories for when Trump loses. I mean, look at all these polls!
At this point, I just treat him as comic relief. Every poll is wrong but that one that shows Trump in the lead!
His campaign manager is a world of shit today with the news that he received 12 million dollars in illegal funds from Ukraine.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Alright, I'll pivot and say screw the polls!
The Presidential Debates Will Almost Surely Decide the Election
Beginning with the televised debate between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon, the perceived winner of the presidential debates has gone on to occupy the White House.
Barring some unforeseen event, such as a serious terrorist attack at home, the decisive event that will determine who wins the 2016 presidential election is almost certainly going to be the series of debates between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. beginning on September 26 at New York’s Hofstra University.
Since 1960, when John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon first met in Chicago, no other single moment has been more important in affecting the outcome of our elections. For good or ill, television’s laser-like eye reveals the candidates’ fitness for the presidency—their knowledge of domestic and foreign policy, their ability to answer reporters’ probing questions, their coolness under fire, the image they project—all tell voters which person should occupy the Oval Office.
History tells us so. Vice President Richard Nixon entered a Chicago television studio on Sept. 26, 1960, confident that he could defeat Sen. Kennedy. After all, he had proven himself a master of television, which was already showing its great ability to affect American politics.
When he was a candidate for vice president in 1952, television had saved his career when a potential scandal—the existence of a private fund created by businessmen to defray his travel and other expenses—threatened his place on the Republican ticket. Party officials wanted him to leave and Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower was leaning in that direction when Nixon decided to take his fate in his own hands. The result was the famous “Checkers Speech” when Nixon, with adoring wife Pat looking on bravely, shrewdly crafted a narrative every American could believe and take pride in. He was everyman: veteran of the Pacific war (“I was just there when the bombs were falling”); devoted husband (“Pat doesn’t have a mink coat… but I tell her she looks good in anything”); father of two darling daughters; public servant barely getting by on his government salary. And borrowing a tactic from FDR, he made his dog Checkers the most famous cocker spaniel in America. In closing, he urged Republicans to write or wire their national committee about whether he should stay or go.
The response was overwhelmingly positive and Nixon, at 39, eventually became the second youngest vice president in history. So he had nothing to fear about debating John F. Kennedy. Unfortunately, he was not at his best that September night. Campaigning in North Carolina earlier, he had banged his knee on a car door, ignored the continuing discomfort and wound up in Walter Reed Hospital with an infection that took him from the campaign for several weeks. After recovering, he rushed to catch up, caught a cold, which he ignored, and entered the television studio underweight, pale, and feverish. He looked terrible, especially when contrasted with Sen. Kennedy, who was tanned and rested. Immediately, his advantage as the experienced vice president disappeared, replaced by a man obviously nervous, perspiring, seemingly unready for the presidency.
Narrowly defeated by Kennedy, Nixon learned from his mistakes. As the Republican presidential nominee in 1968, Nixon chose not to debate his Democratic opponent, Vice President Hubert Humphrey. Instead, under the tutelage of media guru Roger Ailes, he used television brilliantly, appearing in a series of campaign appearance dubbed “the man in the arena,” in which Nixon answered softball questions from friendly audiences. He won. Four years later, running for re-election, he rejected Sen. George McGovern’s call for a debate and never again subjected himself to that kind of format.
Taking office when Nixon resigned, Gerald Ford—the first unelected vice president to succeed to the presidency—could not avoid a debate in the post-Watergate America of 1976. It proved to be his undoing. Stung by his pardon of Richard Nixon and faced with rising inflation and a weak economy, Ford stumbled badly during his second debate with Gov. Jimmy Carter. Discussing Soviet-American relations, he remarked that Russia did not dominate Eastern Europe and never would “under a Ford administration.” Immediately recognizing Ford’s gaffe, Carter, grinning like the Cheshire cat, said that the president’s statement would surprise Polish and Czech Americans whose relatives lived behind the Iron Curtain. In the days that followed, Ford tried to clarify his remarks but the damage was done. Carter was on his way to the White House.
And so it went in succeeding elections—whoever won the debate won the presidency. Political junkies will recall those moments. The year 1988: Michael Dukakis’s tepid response when asked if he would “favor an irrevocable death penalty” for a man who had brutally raped and murdered his wife, Kitty. “No, I don’t, Bernard,” he replied softly to CNN’s Bernard Shaw. “And I think you know that I’ve opposed the death penalty during all my life.” The journalist Roger Simon later recalled the reactions of his colleagues in the press room: “He’s through.” “That’s all she wrote.” “Get the hook.” They were right: Dukakis, now appearing to be a bloodless technocrat, lost to George H.W. Bush.
In 1992 it was Bush’s turn to stumble. Debating Bill Clinton and Ross Perot, Bush seemed indifferent to a questioner from the audience who had been harmed by the recession. The cameras caught him looking at his watch (he later admitted thinking, “only 10 more minutes of this crap”). Clinton immediately sensed an opportunity and moved closer to the woman, seeking more information about how she was faring in hard times. Clinton’s empathy won the night and the presidency.
But it’s the 1980 campaign that bears the closest resemblance to today’s Clinton-Trump contest. President Jimmy Carter, badly weakened by economic woes and his failure to win the release of the American hostages held captive by the Iranians for almost a year, faced Gov. Ronald Reagan, whom many thought too conservative and hawkish to become president. Carter went further: imitating LBJ’s attacks on his 1964 opponent Barry Goldwater, he painted Reagan as reckless and dangerous, his anti-Russian mania a threat to national security: “Reagan will lead us into war,” Carter claimed as the campaign drew to a close. Carter’s vitriolic rhetoric created another problem for the beleaguered president: The press began to attack him as an extremist, the embodiment of “meanness.”
The turning point came during Carter and Reagan’s debate in Cleveland, Ohio, on October 28, 1980. As the two men went to their podiums, Carter aide Vernon Jordan became immediately alarmed. “I didn’t like what I saw,” Jordan later recalled. “Reagan looked relaxed, smiling, robust; the President, erect, lips tight, looking like a coiled spring… an over-trained boxer, too ready for the bout.” Each time Carter hurled a verbal barb, Reagan chuckled, and with a gentle toss of the head, remarked, “There you go again.” Reagan’s affability did not fit the image Carter had tried to create.
Later, Carter complained that Reagan, the former B-movie actor, had “memorized” his best “lines, and he pushes a button and they come out.” He was confident that “the issues are more important than the performance.” He was wrong, as the Reagan landslide shortly proved.
If the history of presidential debates proves anything, it is that performance trumps issues. Time and again, Americans have elected the person who demonstrates not just intelligence but strength, stability, and some indefinable quality—empathy, perhaps, or simple humanity.
Hillary Clinton faces a unique challenge when she faces Donald Trump. He is sui generis, one of kind, unlike anyone else who has ever sought the presidency. He has no programs she can attack, only proclamations—a wall will be built, law and order will return, new jobs will appear, terrorism will be defeated—all will be achieved, as if by magic, after he takes the presidential oath. So far, that strategy has succeeded, at least in some Republican circles.
Will attacking such fiats as empty promises offered by an unqualified, even dangerous, opponent create sympathy for Trump as Carter’s attacks did for Reagan in 1980? Only if Trump borrows a page from the Reagan playbook and shrugs them off with a smile. But is he likely to do that? His behavior during the Republican debates suggests that he won’t because he is incapable of dealing quietly with anyone who strikes at the Trump brand. Vanity is his Achilles’ heel. Insulting his opponents is his style—“Little Marco,” “Lyin’ Ted,” “Listless Jeb,” “Crooked Hillary.”
It is thought that Trump’s unpredictability puts Clinton at a disadvantage. How does one prepare to face a man who has broken all the rules of American politics? In fact, however, Trump is very predictable. He has only one response—to insult. It is Hillary who should imitate Reagan, laugh at Trump’s attacks, and insist that her programs, not Trump’s empty promises, can improve the lives of Americans.
Of course, there is the possibility that there will be no debates this year. Late on Friday night, July 29, Trump tweeted, “As usual, Hillary and the Dems are trying to rig the debates so 2 are up against major NFL games. Same as last time w/Bernie. Unacceptable!” In fact, the debate schedule, created by the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, has been set for almost a year. Later, Trump denied that he was trying to skip the debates, and yesterday, Rudy Giuliani told CNN’s Chris Cuomo that “Donald Trump is going to participate in all three debates” and that he had been charged to oversee their arrangement. Nevertheless, Trump has warned that “certain moderators would be unacceptable, absolutely. …I will demand fair moderators.”
It’s unlikely that Trump will be able to avoid a face-off with Clinton, but he may be able to reduce the number to the one evening—Wednesday, Oct. 19, which does not conflict with football. There is even precedent for holding only one debate—1980, when Carter faced Reagan. However many do occur, it’s almost a certainty that the person who wins that debate will become the next president of the United States.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
I don't think the debates are going to decide the election.
That said, I don't think Trump is going to come off looking too good after them. Moderators will not and should not allow the candidates to get away with avoiding at least some specifics and details of plans. Trump is not prepared to do that. You can watch all of his speeches on CNN, and since I'm in the media biz, I've seen them all, and he rarely offers anything of substance. That's not gonna fly on a debate stage, and he knows it. That's why he's setting himself up to get out of them.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
None of them are offering much of substance. They'll deliver the minimum as always. In Trump's case just enough so he can lay it on Hillary, and there's plenty to lay. A Reagan strategy will not work very well with her baggage. The debates are never about facts, it's about coming out looking good. Trump has showed he can appeal to an audience, Hillary not so much.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
buzzsaw wrote:misterID wrote:"83 percent say economic benefits are skewed to the rich
66 percent say they don't apply for minimum-wage jobs because the pay is too low
The unemployed are spending just 11.7 hours a week looking for work.
More than half — 51 percent — say they haven't had a job interview since 2014."These are issues for Republicans. What you're quoting here is what the Republicans are responsible for. With the house and senate, where has been a real bill to address this? They certainly have not raised minimum wage. They have not stopped corporate welfare. They have not implemented an outsourcing tax...because they are against all of these things. Trump wants to LOWER the minimum wage. We're paying republican salaries to literally obstruct, do nothing, and in Ted Cruz's case, read Doctor Seuss on the senate floor. We almost had the grand bargain, but republicans fucked it up... A bill that would have given them a victory... But they decided to become the party of no instead and make Obama a one term president.
Omg no. Dude, Clinton was president when this shit started. Holy crap are you fucking ignorant. All you go is blame republicans for everything. Everything.
Educate yourself. Learn something. Maybe you can vote for someone that will try to help you instead of trying to hold you down if you do.
Child, please. Grown ups are talking...
BTW, Polly, I gave you a history on Clinton's presidency and how Bush fucked it, like raiding entitlements that were in a surplus to pay for his tax plan, but... You don't like facts, or educating yourself. Take care.
We were until you chimed in. You might be the dumbest motherfucker ever trying to talk politics. Nafta. Look it up. Outsourcing 101.
I've forgotten more about the job market than you're capable of knowing.
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Why hasn’t Hillary Clinton put Donald Trump away yet?
While much of the political and media class have declared the presidential race for 2016 all but over — with the never say never #NeverTrump now urging the Republican National Committee to abandon the race for the White House — a funny thing has happened.
The post-convention poll bounces are over, for both candidates, and the race for president has settled into a fairly competitive contest.
On August 12, the USC Dornsife-LA Times poll had the race within the margin of error, with Hillary Clinton at 44 percent and Donald Trump at 43 percent nationally. By August 15, it is at 45.6 percent to 42 percent in favor of Clinton.
Trump still leads among seniors, 48 percent to 46 percent. And males, 47 percent to 42 percent. Clinton leads similarly albeit wider among women and younger Americans. Trump still leads with no college and some college, 48 percent to 42 percent, and 45 percent to 41 percent, respectively. Watch these numbers closely, as they could prove to be a critical factor come Election Day when it comes to turnout.
Still, the race on whole is fairly close. Close enough to eventually flip. Trump appears to be hitting the demographics he needs to win, but he must press his advantage.
Clinton of course is notorious for not finishing off her opponents in presidential races. She couldn’t put away Barack Obama in 2008. And only by the grace of DNC superdelegates — and more than a little help from national party leaders — did she beat Bernie Sanders in 2016.
Now faced with a Republican candidate in Donald Trump who nobody gave any chance of winning the nomination, let alone the general election — who seemingly creates new, shocking headlines on a daily basis that would cause any other candidate to self-destruct — and once again Clinton cannot seem to finish the job.
After the Khan episode and even the Second Amendment stand Trump has taken, all the smart people in the room have once again declared the race to be over — even though not a single vote has been cast.
Yes, Clinton got a bounce out of her convention. But so did Trump out of the Republican convention in Cleveland. Now, the race is evening out headed into September and the debates.
But why hasn’t Clinton put Trump away?
The fact is, it’s still too early to declare the race is over. Trump is fond of noting that he has not spent any money on television ads yet, even though his opponent has spent hundreds of millions of dollars against him. And still, the race is tight.
Trump appears to be keeping his powder dry, apparently for the fall, when the debates will happen and then the final sprint to Election Day in November.
If we get through August and the race still appears to be tight, the questions will begin to circle on Clinton and why she underperforming — not on Trump, who everyone has already been told is finished and cannot win.
The American people like an underdog. And so far, thanks in no small part to the media’s narrative to count Trump out the race, he has been successfully cast into that role.
Trump’s path is there. But to get there, he needs to expand his leads with older Americans, males and those disaffected by the weak economy, particularly those without college degrees. Talking on security, law and order and promising new jobs and expanding industries helps, and Trump can narrow Clinton’s lead among the wealthy with a supply side, low-tax message.
So much of today’s politics is about building expectations, where one side attempts to dispirit the other with a spate of negative news cycles and the like.
But one thing we’ve learned in 2016 is that voters appear to be in a mood to shatter those expectations. This could be a change election year. Clinton is not inevitable.
Time will tell if it ultimately benefits Trump at the ballot box, but prognosticators declaring the race now finished should remember Yogi Berra’s old adage, “It ain’t over till it’s over.”
Re: 2016 Presidential Election Thread
Haha, keep 'em coming. That is pretty good.
If the election were today, he would be creamed. She has put it away. Right now. But the election isn't today, obviously.
It's 2.5 months away.
"If we get through August and the race still appears to be tight." It's not tight and doesn't appear to be. He leads in no state polls of consequence. He is only close in a few national polls.
Previously, we've seen your posts say polls don't matter.
This story seems to suggest that polls do matter and that the polls show a close race. That's not what the polls are showing at all. The polls right now show a landslide.
Of course, things could change. Hopefully Gary Johnson can surge back up to 15% percent. Maybe Trump can creep back in it.
Right now, though, it's a knockout. That story is laughable.
