2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Sweetemotion

alastair wrote: »

'Minorities' not ' a minority'.

Seriously?:rolleyes:

20Cent

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I don't think it's Republicans grasping at straws at all and how is appealing to a minority going to win the vote?

majority always wins, no?

The analysis after Mitt Romney's loss was that he failed to attract the female and minority vote. They then select someone who has managed to alienate and insult both groups to a remarkable degree.

Sweetemotion

alastair wrote: »

Explanation of the use of the English language above. It doesn't mean rigging anything.

Attacking my use of the English language again?

Is that all you have?

alastair

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Attacking my use of the English language again?

Is that all you have?

I'm sure you have very good reasons for not grasping straightforward english. None of my business.

Sweetemotion

20Cent wrote: »

The analysis after Mitt Romney's loss was that he failed to attract the female and minority vote. They then select someone who has managed to alienate and insult both groups to a remarkable degree.

Everyone who has won the catholic vote from the 70's I think, got elected.

Isn't Trump winning that?

Polls are just polls nobody knows.

Sweetemotion

alastair wrote: »

I'm sure you have very good reasons for not grasping straightforward english. None of my business.

Why attack my English and not my questions?

Does it make you feel superior than me and then for try to make me feel beneath you?

That doesn't work, quite the opposite.

PopePalpatine

alastair wrote: »

Except she's winning.

The latest polls available on RealClearPolitics were all started before the FBI's announcement. According to FiveThirtyEight, she dropped 2% in the national polls when Comey announced she wouldn't face any charges, and a similar drop which would see her chances of winning fall to 68%. IIRC, the last time she was doing that bad was October 3rd, before the tape of Trump's Steubenville-flavoured "locker room talk" was leaked.

alastair

PopePalpatine wrote: »

The latest polls available on RealClearPolitics were all started before the FBI's announcement. According to FiveThirtyEight, she dropped 2% in the national polls when Comey announced she wouldn't face any charges, and a similar drop which would see her chances of winning fall to 68%. IIRC, the last time she was doing that bad was October 3rd, before the tape of Trump's Steubenville-flavoured "locker room talk" was leaked.

So, still winning then.

alastair

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Why attack my English and not my questions?

Does it make you feel superior than me and then for try to make me feel beneath you?

That doesn't work, quite the opposite.

I'm not 'attacking your English'. I'm pointing out your lack of comprehension of someone else's English.

Sweetemotion

alastair wrote: »

I'm not 'attacking your English'. I'm pointing out your lack of comprehension of someone else's English.

Your opinion of that quote and my opinion of that quote are different.

That doesn't make your opinion true nor does it make mine.

Let people decide for themselves, what they think it means.

ancapailldorcha

alastair wrote: »

Except she's winning.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Seriously?:rolleyes:

Less of this please.

alastair

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Your opinion of that quote and my opinion of that quote are different.

That doesn't make your opinion true nor does it make mine.

Actually it does. You didn't understand it, and I did.
It's not an issue of opinions, it's an issue of comprehension.

learn_more

RobertKK wrote: »

On Anderson Cooper 360 last night, they said the result of the latest email controversy could be a lower voter turn out, as people might feel they can't vote for either of the main candidates and think what is the point in voting for someone they don't like.

CNN spends hours teasing out ever single possibility with a panel of 6 or more. They do have some good experienced ex-white-house contributors but god they do like to talk and talk to the point that you'd think they are only trying to promote themselves rather than to express their opinion.

Personally I predict the turnout will be one of the highest ever. I really don't think 'protest non votes' will play any part in the result of this election.

Sweetemotion

alastair wrote: »

Actually it does. You didn't understand it, and I did.
It's not an issue of opinions, it's an issue of comprehension.

It is a matter of opinions how can you not see that?

ancapailldorcha, sorry for derailing the thread.

This will be my last post.

Count Dooku

alastair wrote: »

Except she's winning.

two weeks before elections Carter had 45% and Reagan only 39%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Presidential_elections#United_States_presidential_election.2C_1980
Should I remind what happened next?

alastair

Count Dooku wrote: »

two weeks before elections Carter had 45% and Reagan only 39%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_polling_for_U.S._Presidential_elections#United_States_presidential_election.2C_1980
Should I remind what happened next?

Should I remind you that neither Carter or Reagan are actually running in this election?

It's not actually true in any case - here's a plot graph of the various polls:

Lirange

Sweetemotion wrote: »

majority always wins, no?

More women vote than men so

Count Dooku

alastair wrote: »

Should I remind you that neither Carter or Reagan are actually running in this election?

It's not actually true in any case - here's a plot graph of the various polls:

This graph have been debunked long time ago. This is why snopes says now

WHAT'S TRUE: Ronald Reagan won the 1980 general election in a landslide despite trailing as much as 8% behind Jimmy Carter in some mid-October polls.

WHAT'S FALSE: Reagan wasn't trailing Carter in all polls, and significant events in the final weeks of the 1980 campaign helped to swing public opinion in Reagan's favor.

http://www.snopes.com/carter-reagan-polls/

PopePalpatine

You do realise that the only debate between Reagan and Carter was held on the 28th of October, just a week before the election? That was pretty much THE significant event of the 1980 race.

alastair

Count Dooku wrote: »

This graph have been debunked long time ago. This is why snopes says now

http://www.snopes.com/carter-reagan-polls/

Oh please! This graph is accurate, and has not been debunked. Snopes confirms what it shows.
It shows a couple of outlier polling results that put Carter ahead of Reagan in October (as illustrated), but the overall polling results had Reagan ahead since the summer, and that remained true through October. There wasn't any massive turnaround, except for the boost to Reagans numbers when he did far better than Carter in the television debate.

From the Snopes link:

Carter didn’t lead Reagan for much of the campaign. The [poll tracking] plot shows what Chait describes, which is the ebbing of Carter’s poll standing throughout 1980. Indeed, Reagan didn’t need his convention bump — which he certainly got — to put him in the lead. The Democratic convention helped erode Reagan’s lead but it never closed it altogether.

At the end of the campaign, Reagan did surge, but this only increased his lead. His surge appears to have been brought on first by the debate, and then perhaps by several other events in the final week of the campaign

So - Reagan leading the polls since the summer, and winning in the end. Clinton is on track for winning in 2016 - don't delude yourself otherwise.

Black Swan

RobertKK wrote: »

As for your last line. Why have you not been vocal on the Obama administration doing this with double tap drone strikes?
Obama was only two to three days into his presidency when 4 children were killed as part of a family that were targeted in a drone strike.

Is Obama running for a 3rd term in this 2016 presidential cycle? I thought there were term limits after the FDR presidency to where Obama could only run 2 terms?

Calina

Sweetemotion wrote: »

What if you invested in buying a car to get too the shops the faster?

Still doesn't change the distance.

Brian?

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Is that not still trying to rig the vote?

How is that trying to rig the vote? "Rig" implies cheating.

I've reread the quote. "Determine " doesn't mean influence the outcome, it means predict the outcome:

"I determine that Hillary will be the next president based on the current polling numbers."

oik

Black Swan wrote: »

Is Obama running for a 3rd term in this 2016 presidential cycle? I thought there were term limits after the FDR presidency to where Obama could only run 2 terms?

The "Bill/Obama aren't running" argument is paper thin.

Bill is not going to be a wallflower in her administration and Clinton was anything but a wallflower in Obama's administration for 4 years.

They're members of the same party/administrations.

You wouldn't rightly claim that Theresa May wasn't responsible for any of the policies of the Tory government the last few years, would you? Of course not.

oik

Brian? wrote: »

Your contention is that the only way to influence the outcome of an election is to cheat?

What about endorsing a chosen candidate or funding said candidate? No, because it's Hillary she mush have meant cheating. You know, because she's so evil.

I see the shoe is now on the other foot and Clinton supporters are engaging in mental gymnastics to justify their candidate's misstatements.

A Little Pony

Trump IS going to win!

ancapailldorcha

A Little Pony wrote: »

Trump IS going to win!

Post more constructively than this please.

alastair

oik wrote: »

I see the shoe is now on the other foot and Clinton supporters are engaging in mental gymnastics to justify their candidate's misstatements.

It's neither a mis-statement, nor anything to do with rigging elections. It's a clear comment about not knowing who was likely to win the election. There in straightforward language.

alastair

oik wrote: »

The "Bill/Obama aren't running" argument is paper thin.

Bill is not going to be a wallflower in her administration and Clinton was anything but a wallflower in Obama's administration for 4 years.

They're members of the same party/administrations.

You wouldn't rightly claim that Theresa May wasn't responsible for any of the policies of the Tory government the last few years, would you? Of course not.

You clearly wouldn't pretend that Theresa May was responsible for all Tory policy over the last few years, would you? Were all those in her party competing with her for the Tory leadership proposing the same platform or direction? So why the difficulty in identifying that Bill, Obama, and Hillary, are different people, with different opinions on issues?

Sofa Spud

Nate Silver at http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ still has Hillary at 81% chance of winning and 324 electoral votes. Looks like Trump could take Iowa and Ohio, but he still has no chance of Pennsylvania, and Florida will need a sizeable shift to go his way, so the road to 270 is still gonna be next to impossible for him to reach.

I guess all the new email stuff is gonna take until mid-week to be baked into the poll numbers - the possible pertinent question is how much the latest stuff will impact actual turnout? Will it have fence-sitters that had resigned themselves to holding their nose and voting for Hillary now staying at home? Will it have any impact on undecideds? Can Trump use it to build some momentum and increase his voter turnout?

I'm not sure anyone can make a call and what, if any, all the recent hullabaloo will impact the race, but the state by state facts mean that Hair Furor still has a mountain to climb to reach 270, so I'd ignore the national polls to a certain extent and instead focus on FL, OH, PA, IA, NC and watch for movement there....

Brian?

oik wrote: »

I see the shoe is now on the other foot and Clinton supporters are engaging in mental gymnastics to justify their candidate's misstatements.

The irony in this post is so dense I'm surprised it's not creating a singularity in space time.

Trump says: "I want to ban all muslims"
Trump supporters: " he meant jihadists, it would be silly to ban all muslims "

Trump says: " I don't even ask, I just grab them by the pussy "
Trump supporters : "of course he wouldn't just grab women by the pussy, that's locker room talk"

I explain the meaning of the word "determine" and get accused of mental gymnastics? Give me a break.

oik

alastair wrote: »

You clearly wouldn't pretend that Theresa May was responsible for all Tory policy over the last few years, would you? Were all those in her party competing with her for the Tory leadership proposing the same platform or direction? So why the difficulty in identifying that Bill, Obama, and Hillary, are different people, with different opinions on issues?

What about collective cabinet responsibility?

No, but it's a neat get out clause for avoiding any direct criticism of Obama or Bill because they're not running. They're referred to as "Mr. President" and both have a working relationship with the "Madame President" so to deny their continuing influence on the White House after this election is idiotic.

Tim Kaine is an Obama loyalist fyi and Michelle Obama has been instrumental in helping Hillary get elected. Loretta Lynch is owed by Hillary big time and she is an Obama loyalist. Obama's influence will continue after he leaves office if Clinton is elected so scrutiny of him is very relevant to Clinton.

No one is suggesting that Clinton and Obama are the same person, but that's the standard that some people here try to uphold before we can mention them in the same sentence and it's either ignorant or disingenuous.

oik

Brian? wrote: »

The irony in this post is so dense I'm surprised it's not creating a singularity in space time.

Trump says: "I want to ban all muslims"
Trump supporters: " he meant jihadists, it would be silly to ban all muslims "

Trump says: " I don't even ask, I just grab them by the pussy "
Trump supporters : "of course he wouldn't just grab women by the pussy, that's locker room talk"

I explain the meaning of the word "determine" and get accused of mental gymnastics? Give me a break.

Yeah, that was exactly my point Brian. Clinton supporters are forced into the same mental gymnastics now.

The irony was in your post, not mine, so don't feel clever for pointing it out.

alastair

oik wrote: »

No, but it's a neat get out clause for avoiding any direct criticism of Obama or Bill because they're not running. They're referred to as "Mr. President" and both have a working relationship with the "Madame President" so to deny their continuing influence on the White House after this election is idiotic.

Tim Kaine is an Obama loyalist fyi and Michelle Obama has been instrumental in helping Hillary get elected. Loretta Lynch is owed by Hillary big time and she is an Obama loyalist. Obama's influence will continue after he leaves office if Clinton is elected so scrutiny of him is very relevant to Clinton.

No one is suggesting that Clinton and Obama are the same person, but that's the standard that some people here try to uphold before we can mention them in the same sentence and it's either ignorant or disingenuous.

What's idiotic is to imagine that calling previous presidents "Mr. President" has any bearing on who actually will be running the presidency. The party supports it's candidate (unless you're Trump, and antagonise that party beyond the line); that's the norm, and most people realise that different administrations have different priorities, policies, and motivations. Attempting to paint Hillary with the record of either Obama, or Bill, just makes no sense - she's a different candidate.

Re: collective cabinet responsibility - no one is pretending that May wasn't beholden to that, but that doesn't imply that she is therefore beholden to her predecessor's policies.

alastair

oik wrote: »

Yeah, that was exactly my point Brian. Clinton supporters are forced into the same mental gymnastics now.

The irony was in your post, not mine, so don't feel clever for pointing it out.

Once again - there is zero requirement for mental gymnastics in understanding Hillary's comment on the Palestinian elections. The only people who are engaged in that are the Trump camp, with their nonsensical misinterpretation.

Brian?

oik wrote: »

Yeah, that was exactly my point Brian. Clinton supporters are forced into the same mental gymnastics now.

The irony was in your post, not mine, so don't feel clever for pointing it out.

I'm actually stunned by this response.

My post was irony free. There are no mental gymnastics involved in defining a simple sentence spoken in our native tongue. The mental gymnastics is believing that sentence has a deeper and sinister meaning .

oik

alastair wrote: »

What's idiotic is to imagine that calling previous presidents "Mr. President" has any bearing on who actually will be running the presidency. The party supports it's candidate (unless you're Trump, and antagonise that party beyond the line); that's the norm, and most people realise that different administrations have different priorities, policies, and motivations. Attempting to paint Hillary with the record of either Obama, or Bill, just makes no sense - she's a different candidate.

Re: collective cabinet responsibility - no one is pretending that May wasn't beholden to that, but that doesn't imply that she is therefore beholden to her predecessor's policies.

When her husband is a former president who is more popular, smarter and a better politician than her it's reasonable to assume that he will wield considerable influence within the White House. If you deny this then you don't really understand how power works and you probably believe he spoke to the AG on a plane for 30 minutes about their grandkids.

When her VP is a loyalist to her predecessor who was more than likely installed by him to ensure some measure of continuity of the policy and legacy of the former president in return for the campaigning efforts of him and his wife on her behalf, it's reasonable to assume that there will be a continuation of policies already in place, even if some of them go against her own wishes. She made a deal.

If you deny all this, then either I'm crazy or I'm the only one here who understands power politics.

alastair

oik wrote: »

When her husband is a former president who is more popular, smarter and a better politician than her it's reasonable to assume that he will wield considerable influence within the White House. If you deny this then you don't really understand how power works and you probably believe he spoke to the AG on a plane for 30 minutes about their grandkids.

When her VP is a loyalist to her predecessor who was more than likely installed by him to ensure some measure of continuity of the policy and legacy of the former president in return for the campaigning efforts of him and his wife on your behalf, it's reasonable to assume that there will be a continuation of policies already in place, even if some of them go against her own wishes. She made a deal.

The job isn't a popularity contest. You could put Daniel O'Donnell in the Whitehouse with Hillary, and she would still be the one in charge. I think it's you who doesn't understand how power works. Your VP stuff is probably better off in the CT forum.

To answer your last question - it's you.

alastair

oik wrote: »

Ah here we go. Clinton is a straight shooter guys.

Clinton is the slipperiest character in all of politics.

Narrowly avoided committing perjury through clever word choice.

"I never sent documents that were marked classified"

No document is marked classified.

They're either marked confidential, secret or top secret and she sent some of those, but she avoids perjury by clever choice of words.

Not the case: http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

osmiumartist

oik wrote: »

Ah here we go. Clinton is a straight shooter guys.

Clinton is the slipperiest character in all of politics.

The only hard and fast rule here is that anybody who tells you either of these chancers running are whiter than white can be safely ignored.

alastair

oik wrote: »

Not in 2008

You slyly avoided my question.

Why did she choose someone who is clearly an Obama loyalist that does nothing to expand the base?

He endorsed Hillary in this election. What's the difficulty in grasping that just because he supported Obama in '08 he's not a Clinton 'loyalist' now?

alastair

osmiumartist wrote: »

Nonsense. He's saying people interpret things they way they do because they're biased from the off. While making no case that that isn't what he's doing himself by coming to that conclusion.
Dress it up if you like. Still transparent. Hard luck.

He made a straightforward case for basic comprehension of the comment - and the need for abandoning basic comprehension to misinterpret the comment. Perhaps you missed it?

alastair

osmiumartist wrote: »

The only hard and fast rule here is that anybody who tells you either of these chancers running are whiter than white can be safely ignored.

I've not seen a single poster make any such claim. Are you thinking of a different forum?

osmiumartist

alastair wrote: »

He made a straightforward case for basic comprehension of the comment - and the need for abandoning basic comprehension to misinterpret the comment. Perhaps you missed it?

I missed nothing. You are wilfully misinterpreting what I said because of your inherent bias. <--- see what I did there.
It's a pointless comment. Take your medicine and move along.

cnocbui

osmiumartist wrote: »

Post deleted.

The version of events concerning the deleting of the emails I read is a bit different than what you seem to think happened.

The email service was provided by a private company. The server was not directly under the control of Clinton or her staff and wasn't physically accessible.

Several months before the FBI ever got involved a couple of Clinton's staff, one a lawyer, went through the emails flagging personal ones for purging and others for archiving. They then asked the company providing the email services to act. The person tasked to do the work didn't do as he was instructed. Months later When the FBI approached the company providing the server, a certain individual had an 'oh shít' moment and hastily went and did what he had been told to do months prior.

Why shouldn't she have her staff delete emails connected with organising Chelsea's wedding or which were similarly of a private nature?

ancapailldorcha

Right, I'm not sure how exactly this thread degenerated so quickly but I've erased about 60 posts. Apologies if any legitimate posts got caught. Cards and bans have been issued so let's get back on track please.

dwayneshintzy

Think my post got missed in all that nonsense, and has also now been deleted, but.....has there been any talk on here about the Trump supporter who's been arrested for electoral fraud?

Shows how dangerous and misguided his rhetoric about the "widespread fraud" committed by Democrats really is.

ancapailldorcha

dwayneshintzy wrote: »

Think my post got missed in all that nonsense, and has also now been deleted, but.....has there been any talk on here about the Trump supporter who's been arrested for electoral fraud?

Apologies but there were over 3 pages of posts that had to go as it was a few users bickering.

dwayneshintzy

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Apologies but there were over 3 pages of posts that had to go as it was a few users bickering.

Ha no it's grand, just saying it's a repost is all.

K-9

Indeed, what a bloody mess, the posts that were deleted were an example of what we do not want in this forum, and in fairness posters have avoided those by and large in the forum.

In short up the standard of posts, personal digs about comprehension, the English language etc. are not wanted in this forum.