2016 US Presidential Race - Mod Warning in OP

Akrasia

I can see third party candidates having a major impact on this election

Are these being properly accounted for in the polls?

Clinton is ridiculously unpopular, the only reason she has any hope is because Trump is also ridiculously unpopular.

Jill Stein comes across as way more likeable and her policies are way more popular compared with Clinton who has been judged to have grudgingly adopted populism at the insistence of Sanders

On the other side of the spectrum, Gary Johnson is the go to guy on the right. A lot of people will be weighing up their options in November and because there is so much to dislike about both mainstream candidates, they will seriously consider a third party.

Jill Stein has formally offered Sanders her position as the green party nomination. I don't think Sanders will accept this because he has already committed to not running as a third party candidate, and there is a huge risk that it would hand the presidency over to Trump, but the fact that Stein made this offer has put her on the radar of a lot of Sanders supporters who previously might not have really considered her as a viable candidate.

There is a very real conflict amongst about a third of democrat voters, and a significant number of independents, over which candidate is worse, Clinton or Trump.

The republican party seem to have unified behind Trump (or against Clinton)

The number of non voters on the dem side, or third party voters could significantly affect the outcome of this election.

Billy86

It's not going to happen, but let's say Stein AND Johnson each ran separate, as 3rd and 4th parties candidates (so as not to solely split the Reps or Dems)... that would be seriously interesting!

Akrasia

Billy86 wrote: »

It's not going to happen, but let's say Stein AND Johnson each ran separate, as 3rd and 4th parties candidates (so as not to solely split the Reps or Dems)... that would be seriously interesting!

Stein and Johnson are running separately

The race could very easily be decided by which of these candidates takes more votes away from Hillary or Donald.

Unless of course Trump decides to run naked through a nunnery or something ludicrous that utterly destroys his credibility amongst even his die hard supporters.

InTheTrees

Akrasia wrote: »

Stein and Johnson are running separately

The race could very easily be decided by which of these candidates takes more votes away from Hillary or Donald.
\

The way the US media works is that you just dont hear about these other candidates at all. Not at all. Well maybe johnson gets a bit of coverage. But Stein gets almost nothing. The US establishment doesnt like The Greens at all.

Black Swan

InTheTrees wrote: »

The way the US media works is that you just dont hear about these other candidates at all. Not at all.

The news media is first and foremost a business. News media ratings attract advertisers and associated profits; i.e., no profits, no news media. 3rd party candidates have not been very entertaining this election year, and if the past few months are an example, such 3rd party candidates will largely remain obscure and continue not to attract much coverage air time.

This 2016 presidential election seems to be more entertainment-driven than substance-driven, and whomever puts on be best show between now and 8 November will probably win. Although Trump has ZERO experience in governance, diplomacy, and CIC, he does have extensive experience in the entertainment industry (Celebrity Apprentice, Miss USA, etc.), which I believe largely accounts for his Republican nomination this year. If Trump continues to entertain with his new Celebrity Apprentice President reality game show, he may beat Hillary Clinton, whom has substantially more experience in governance and diplomacy, but is boring as an entertainer.

Akrasia

Black Swan wrote: »

The news media is first and foremost a business. News media ratings attract advertisers and associated profits; i.e., no profits, no news media. 3rd party candidates have not been very entertaining this election year, and if the past few months are an example, such 3rd party candidates will largely remain obscure and continue not to attract much coverage air time.

This 2016 presidential election seems to be more entertainment-driven than substance-driven, and whomever puts on be best show between now and 8 November will probably win. Although Trump has ZERO experience in governance, diplomacy, and CIC, he does have extensive experience in the entertainment industry (Celebrity Apprentice, Miss USA, etc.), which I believe largely accounts for his Republican nomination this year. If Trump continues to entertain with his new Celebrity Apprentice President reality game show, he may beat Hillary Clinton, whom has substantially more experience in governance and diplomacy, but is boring as an entertainer.

The media doesn't cover 3rd party candidates, but they didn't really cover Sanders either until he became impossible to ignore, and even then, his coverage was minimal and biased against him. And yet he got close to half of the votes in the Democratic primary and is way more popular than Clinton amongst republicans and independents.

The media ignores 3rd party candidates, but 'social media' is different, and it's not impossible that one of these candidates could 'go viral' in the same way Sanders did.

In a normal election where the candidates offer something positive (at least on a superficial level), this is less likely, but these two candidates are so unpopular, people will be actively seeking an alternative to vote for, or not voting at all.

Suryavarman

Clinton is beating Trump among college educated voters according to Bloomberg:

White voters with at least a college degree—a group that represented more than a third of the 2012 electorate—back Clinton over Trump 48 percent to 37 percent, the latest Purple Slice online poll for Bloomberg Politics shows. Romney won that group by 14 percentage points, according to exit polls.

Among all college-educated likely voters, including those with post-graduate degrees, Clinton leads 54 percent to 32 percent, a much bigger margin than President Barack Obama’s 2-point advantage with a group that represented 47 percent of the electorate in 2012. Among voters with just a college degree and no post-graduate degree, another subgroup Romney won in 2012, Clinton is ahead 48 percent to 37 percent.

Even in a notional four-candidate field, Clinton beats Trump among college-educated likely voters, 45 percent to 27 percent. Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson received 10 percent support when included in the mix of candidates, below the 15-percent average he would need in national polls to be included in this year’s presidential debates. Jill Stein, the presumptive Green Party nominee, received 3 percent.

This is particularly bad for Trump as the Democratic candidate hasn't won with college educated whites since 1952. It seems that with every passing week there is a poll released showing Trump doing especially terrible with a different demographic.

PopePalpatine

[Drumpfuck]That's because he refuses to pander to [insert group here]![/Drumpfuck]

RobertKK

Sanders looked increasingly awkward as Hillary delivered her rally address, he had to do it, but the body language was not the most convincing.

Amerika

In a new Quinnipiac poll from Wednesday, for “swing-states” (the states that matter most in the presidential election and will probably decide how the election goes) shows Trump leading Clinton in Florida and Pennsylvania, and tied in Ohio.

http://www.qu.edu/news-and-events/quinnipiac-university-poll/2016-presidential-swing-state-polls/release-detail?ReleaseID=2365

Granted, the democratic socialist, Sanders, just endorsed the socialist democrat, Hillary, and the effect on his supporters probably wasn't factored into the survey. Also, Trump's selection of VP and how the GOP convention goes won't be factored in for several weeks.

Regardless, this election might just be much closer than all the "experts" predict.

K-9

PopePalpatine wrote: »

[Drumpfuck]That's because he refuses to pander to [insert group here]![/Drumpfuck]

This is way below the standard expected on the thread. We've also warned a couple of times about this Drumpf stuff, use the candidates proper names, thank you.

There has been enough friendly warnings about this before. Friendly warnings only work if posters listen to them. Next breach will be a week ban minimum.

TheDoctor

I wonder what concessions Bernie got for endorsing Hillary?

#crimewithher

20Cent

TheDoctor wrote: »

I wonder what concessions Bernie got for endorsing Hillary?

#crimewithher

He said from the very start that he would endorse whoever got the nomination no surprise.

TheDoctor

I assume he still got some token gestures thrown his way.

Amerika

Sanders thinks his successes in the primary has forced Clinton to now agree with many of his beloved policies. In actuality, Sanders’ support was merely another box that needed to be checked in Hillary's plan on getting to the general election, IMO. I think Sanders supporters will be greatly disappointed for throwing their support behind Clinton, but only after it’s too late.

TheDoctor

Think Jill Stein will get a good number of the Bernie vote.

Amerika

TheDoctor wrote: »

Think Jill Stein will get a good number of the Bernie vote.

Too early to tell, IMO. Right now Sanders’ supporters don’t know who Jill Stein is. So the vast majority of Sanders supporters will go to Clinton. As of now the vast majority of the media seems to be in Clinton’s back pocket, and their focus appears to be in the taking down of Trump. Stein is only an occasional footnote in the reporting. But in the coming months, if circumstances dictate the media can no longer shun Stein, I think she could become the liberal establishment’s worst nightmare. She’s an inspiring progressive, and someone the liberals and young could trust with their ideals and principles.

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

In a new Quinnipiac poll from Wednesday, for “swing-states” (the states that matter most in the presidential election and will probably decide how the election goes) shows Trump leading Clinton in Florida and Pennsylvania, and tied in Ohio.

Historically the presidential election had been decided before the California ECs were counted, but methinks this year the election will be sooooo very close that California with its 55/270 = 20% of the ECs to win will decide the 2016 election between Clinton and Trump. If so, Trump is in serious trouble, because California will never go for Donald Trump, especially with him as a defendant for (alleged) "Fraud, racketeering, and corruption" at his Trump University in US District Court held in San Diego.

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Historically the presidential election had been decided before the California ECs were counted, but methinks this year the election will be sooooo very close that California with its 55/270 = 20% of the ECs to win will decide the 2016 election between Clinton and Trump. If so, Trump is in serious trouble, because California will never go for Donald Trump, especially with him as a defendant for (alleged) "Fraud, racketeering, and corruption" at his Trump University in US District Court held in San Diego.

Oh, I agree you can already call California for Clinton today. But I've seen several very plausible scenarios of how Trump can win the electoral college... without any help from the left coast.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/05/five-not-totally-crazy-electoral-maps-that-show-donald-trump-winning/

TheDoctor

How many states are actually a contest and not a definite red or blue? 8? 10?

Akrasia

TheDoctor wrote: »

How many states are actually a contest and not a definite red or blue? 8? 10?

Clinton and Teflon Trump are now tied at 40% support each in the latest CNN poll

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/15/us/politics/hillary-clinton-donald-trump-poll.html?_r=0

Clinton is on a downward spiral, Trump and Clinton are both losing support, the question is, who loses the most support?

I still contend that the 3rd party candidates will decide this election.

Black Swan

Black Swan wrote: »

Historically the presidential election had been decided before the California ECs were counted, but methinks this year the election will be sooooo very close that California with its 55/270 = 20% of the ECs to win will decide the 2016 election between Clinton and Trump. If so, Trump is in serious trouble, because California will never go for Donald Trump, especially with him as a defendant for (alleged) "Fraud, racketeering, and corruption" at his Trump University in US District Court held in San Diego.

Seriously? How close do you think it's gonna be?

Amerika wrote: »

Oh, I agree you can already call California for Clinton today. But I've seen several very plausible scenarios of how Trump can win the electoral college... without any help from the left coast.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/05/five-not-totally-crazy-electoral-maps-that-show-donald-trump-winning/

Unfortunately every one of those maps has him winning Ohio while 4/5 have him winning Florida. Also 4/5 have him winning Wisconsin which no Republican has done since Reagan. Also every single one has him winning Virginia. Also every single one has him winning both Utah and Arizona. Those 5/5 states (Ohio, Virginia, Utah, Arizona) add up to 48 delegates or a swing of 96. Never mind the 4/5s (Florida and Wisconsin) which add to 39.

There's a huge amount of wishful thinking that Trump has a chance as things stand. I hope to do some sums at a later date but Hillary is well on track to match Obama in 2012.

InTheTrees

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a huge amount of wishful thinking that Trump has a chance as things stand. I hope to do some sums at a later date but Hillary is well on track to match Obama in 2012.

Florida, Utah and Arizona will be interesting to watch.

Florida is a big question mark. The republican governor is unpopular. They have a large hispanic population and also a large retiree population who will be paying close attention to trumps plans for privatizing social security. (Retirees dont like the idea of tying their pensions to the stock market).

And Utah. Will Mitt romneys campaign against trump swing the state to blue? Its highly unlikely but Mormons are a close knit bunch and I expect the mitt vs donald feud is getting a lot more press in Utah than outside it. trump is certainly going to have to put in some time/money to keep utah red.

A couple of days ago the GOP were forced to include trumps plans for a border Wall (with mexican funding) into the republicans "manifesto" for this novembers election, so that idea is going to get a lot more exposure over the coming months.

InTheTrees

The Republicans are also including opposition to gay marriage in their party platform. They're going to work to redefine marriage as solely between one man and one woman. Does this mean previous same sex marriages will be annulled?

Thats really going to help them in a Red but socially liberal state like Wisconsin. Its also one more divisive issue that it would seem wise for them to just shut up about at this point.

TheDoctor

Think they need to move on from the gay marriage debate. Its now supported by the majority in the States and only going one way.


Conservatives once again being on the wrong side of history.
Reality has a liberal bias.

InTheTrees

In an interesting move Trump as give a speaking slot at the convention to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Bondi is the attorney general who dropped the Trump University case in Florida after personally soliciting a $25,000 campaign donation from him.

An interesting decision by the trump campaign, so we can expect the Trump University story to take on new legs.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/presumptive-republican-nominee-cant-shake-trump-u-controversy

Billy86

InTheTrees wrote: »

In an interesting move Trump as give a speaking slot at the convention to Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi.

Bondi is the attorney general who dropped the Trump University case in Florida after personally soliciting a $25,000 campaign donation from him.

An interesting decision by the trump campaign, so we can expect the Trump University story to take on new legs.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/presumptive-republican-nominee-cant-shake-trump-u-controversy

It happens on both sides of the aisle (which is precisely why nothing is ever considered to be done about it), but in situations like this thorough investigations should be done and the law brought down on both like a tonne of bricks if corruption is found. As seen here, they don't really even try to hide it anymore.

RobertKK

Supreme court justice Ginsburg says she regrets criticising Trump.

It was a very stupid move by her, and the fact that Bill Clinton appointed her raises many questions about her and her motives.
Trump was right to ask her to resign for what she did, it was highly unprofessional and it was directly interfering in the democratic process.

If she really did regret what she said, she would have resigned. Wrong on so many levels what she did.

InTheTrees

RobertKK wrote: »

Supreme court justice Ginsburg says she regrets criticising Trump.

A storm in a teacup. Scalia was intensely political, flying off on holidays with Dick Cheney. And he never held back his political views.

And certainly never apologized for anything.

Back in the early days there was a justice who was also in the cabinet. Which seems constitutionally conflicted but happened anyway.

oscarBravo

...and it's not like Alito has ever hidden his contempt for Obama.