2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

oscarBravo · 26-09-2016 11:45am

FA Hayek wrote: »

Social reform? Trump is actually the most moderate Republican for decades.

His list of Supreme Court candidates tells a different story. I mean, Mike Lee?

Brian? · 26-09-2016 12:00pm

FA Hayek wrote: »

Social reform? Trump is actually the most moderate Republican for decades. The only standout for him here is immigration, which is probably more inlined with the general public then the political and corporate elite. People make him out to be some right wing christian ideologue like Cruz, he isn't, he is far far off it and when push comes to shove him and Clinton would actually have much in common.

As Oscar Bravo pointed out his Supreme Court nominee will be a disaster for progressive social reform. In ways we don't even know yet. But I suspect it'll hit LGBT rights hard as well as stifle any kind of sensible gun control measures.

Billy86 · 26-09-2016 12:08pm

And that's before getting into the differences on both candidates track records when it comes to "the blacks".

PopePalpatine · 26-09-2016 12:15pm

Billy86 wrote: »

And that's before getting into the differences on both candidates track records when it comes to "the blacks".

For starters, Clinton wasn't sued by the federal government for discriminating against non-whites.

Suryavarman · 26-09-2016 12:25pm

FA Hayek wrote: »

Not necessarily. That was a very good put down in my opinion by Trump. He is the master of them. People have been trying to enage him in his own game time and again and he has always come out on top. People were talking more about Gennifer Flowers then Mark Cuban, certainly on social media. Just look at the trending stats for each name.

https://www.google.com.au/trends/explore?date=now%207-d&q=%2Fm%2F01yq7d,%2Fm%2F024t0y
You can see who the clear winner is here.

That is the problem for Hillary, if she is going to take him on in the debate, then she has to thread carefully as he could come out with a one liner that will be the talking point of the debate. That in of itself will have won the debate for Trump because that is what people will be talking about.

Jeb, Rubio and Cruz and have all tried this game, and they all failed. Clinton does not want to become another Jeb.

Most people aren't sexist, so Trump mocking a woman because she was cheated on isn't going to win him any support. Cuban irritates Trump and Cuban is going to be in the audience during the debate. There's no way a sexist like Trump is going to be able to keep his cool debating a woman for 90 minutes while a man he hates is in the audience sneering at him.

Suryavarman · 26-09-2016 12:26pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

His list of Supreme Court candidates tells a different story. I mean, Mike Lee?

His shortlist was so moronic it's hard to believe it was even serious.

Chips Lovell · 26-09-2016 12:26pm

I think this year we're finally seeing the electoral discourse complete the shift away from debate towards a form of entertainment.

The contest increasingly feels like reality TV. Talking points and controversies are often scripted less for their (frequently tenuous) relationship with the truth and more for the emotional reaction they'll generate, e.g. "You'll never guess how X reacted when Y said their supporters are ignorant".

Occasionally it's gotten so bad that it resembles the trash talk before a wrestling match. The only difference is the prize is much bigger.

If people want to pick their president on the basis of how they make them feel rather than what they may actually do when in office, that's fine, as long as they realise that's what they're doing.

ebbsy · 26-09-2016 12:36pm

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think this year we're finally seeing the electoral discourse complete the shift away from debate towards a form of entertainment.

The contest increasingly feels like reality TV. Talking points and controversies are often scripted less for their (frequently tenuous) relationship with the truth and more for the emotional reaction they'll generate, e.g. "You'll never guess how X reacted when Y said their supporters are ignorant".

Occasionally it's gotten so bad that it resembles the trash talk before a wrestling match. The only difference is the prize is much bigger.

If people want to pick their president on the basis of how they make them feel rather than what they may actually do when in office, that's fine, as long as they realise that's what they're doing.

That is what Trump wants. And at the moment it's working......

RobertKK · 26-09-2016 12:37pm

I was watching Anderson Cooper on CNN last night.
The consensus seemed to be no one knows what will happen tonight.

CNN/ORC have two new polls which shows the Trump momentum is continuing.

Colorado:
Trump 42%
Hillary 41%
Johnson 13%
Stein 3%

In Pennsylvania where Hillary did have a big lead.
Hillary 45%
Trump 44%
Johnson 6%
Stein 3%

The polls found that the two hanger on candidates have been taking most of the support away from Hillary and if their poll numbers weaken, then Hillary would be the main beneficiary in those states.

Nate Silver has commented that the election looks similar to Brexit.

RobertKK · 26-09-2016 12:42pm

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think this year we're finally seeing the electoral discourse complete the shift away from debate towards a form of entertainment.

The contest increasingly feels like reality TV. Talking points and controversies are often scripted less for their (frequently tenuous) relationship with the truth and more for the emotional reaction they'll generate, e.g. "You'll never guess how X reacted when Y said their supporters are ignorant".

Occasionally it's gotten so bad that it resembles the trash talk before a wrestling match. The only difference is the prize is much bigger.

If people want to pick their president on the basis of how they make them feel rather than what they may actually do when in office, that's fine, as long as they realise that's what they're doing.

That is how our own Michael D Higgins got elected, a tweet that was not true about Gallagher won the election for Higgins.
It was entertainment.
Remember all the David Norris stuff?
Our own presidential elections are equally as entertaining.
Dana and the tyre bursting on her car and the talk of sabotage.
It is reality TV.

Chips Lovell · 26-09-2016 12:42pm

ebbsy wrote: »

That is what Trump wants. And at the moment it's working......

I think it's more that's what people want. Increasingly they respond to people who tell them what they want to hear.

Chips Lovell · 26-09-2016 12:46pm

RobertKK wrote: »

That is how our own Michael D Higgins got elected, a tweet that was not true about Gallagher won the election for Higgins.
It was entertainment.
Remember all the David Norris stuff?
Our own presidential elections are equally as entertaining.
Dana and the tyre bursting on her car and the talk of sabotage.
It is reality TV.

Indeed. Anyone who gets up on their high horse about America needs to remember that.

RobertKK · 26-09-2016 12:46pm

Polls are showing that Maine has moved from Clinton to toss up.
Illinois has moved from Clinton to lean Clinton.
Nevada which Obama won is showing to be toss up/lean Trump.

Hillary needs a big night.
Trump has to avoid negative controversy. His new team seems to have turned things around for him.

Quin_Dub · 26-09-2016 12:47pm

RobertKK wrote: »

That is how our own Michael D Higgins got elected, a tweet that was not true about Gallagher won the election for Higgins.
It was entertainment.
Remember all the David Norris stuff?
Our own presidential elections are equally as entertaining.
Dana and the tyre bursting on her car and the talk of sabotage.
It is reality TV.

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

Indeed. Anyone who gets up on their high horse about America needs to remember that.

True,

But our President shakes hands and cuts ribbons , theirs can have an actual impact on peoples lives!!

Call Me Jimmy · 26-09-2016 12:48pm

Well public discourse (online) takes the form of perpetual outrage of the words others use, so it makes sense that that's all the two candidates are at.

FA Hayek · 26-09-2016 12:57pm

Brian? wrote: »

As Oscar Bravo pointed out his Supreme Court nominee will be a disaster for progressive social reform. In ways we don't even know yet. But I suspect it'll hit LGBT rights hard as well as stifle any kind of sensible gun control measures.

Ironically he is probably the most pro LGBT GOP candidate for, well ever. He is after all a New Yorker. People want to label him as an a typical social conservative but he is anything but.

However, labels are easy in this post truth world and thus mud slinging is more palatable. You can say a lot about Trump but to say he is a social conservative is not one of them

Christy42 · 26-09-2016 1:07pm

FA Hayek wrote: »

Ironically he is probably the most pro LGBT GOP candidate for, well ever. He is after all a New Yorker. People want to label him as an a typical social conservative but he is anything but.

However, labels are easy in this post truth world and thus mud slinging is more palatable. You can say a lot about Trump but to say he is a social conservative is not one of them

I would have expected a less anti LGBT list for the supreme Court if he wasn't a social conservative. You also have remember that if this 70 year old overweight man has a heart attack then we get possibly the most socially conservative GOP president in quite some time.

Also being the most pro LGBT candidate from the GOP is not a high bar. It is kinda like being the least racist grand wizard of the KKK ever..

FA Hayek · 26-09-2016 1:09pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

Most people aren't sexist, so Trump mocking a woman because she was cheated on isn't going to win him any support. Cuban irritates Trump and Cuban is going to be in the audience during the debate. There's no way a sexist like Trump is going to be able to keep his cool debating a woman for 90 minutes while a man he hates is in the audience sneering at him.

You are still thinking about this like its 2012. This is 2016, this is not the usual conventional politics, tis about entertainment, soundbites and who can 'act' more presidential.

Hilary tried a fast one and lost. Mark Cuban being in the audience will have no baring what so ever on the outcome.

Suryavarman · 26-09-2016 1:15pm

FA Hayek wrote: »

Ironically he is probably the most pro LGBT GOP candidate for, well ever. He is after all a New Yorker. People want to label him as an a typical social conservative but he is anything but.

However, labels are easy in this post truth world and thus mud slinging is more palatable. You can say a lot about Trump but to say he is a social conservative is not one of them

The GOP platform that Trump is running under is the most anti-LGBT platform ever, endorsing nonsense practices such as conversion therapy.

FA Hayek wrote: »

You are still thinking about this like its 2012. This is 2016, this is not the usual conventional politics, tis about entertainment, soundbites and who can 'act' more presidential.

Hilary tried a fast one and lost. Mark Cuban being in the audience will have no baring what so ever on the outcome.

The polls have consistently shown that attacking Clinton on her husband's infidelities gains her sympathy and hurts Trump.

FA Hayek · 26-09-2016 1:19pm

Jep Gambardella wrote: »

I think this year we're finally seeing the electoral discourse complete the shift away from debate towards a form of entertainment.

The contest increasingly feels like reality TV. Talking points and controversies are often scripted less for their (frequently tenuous) relationship with the truth and more for the emotional reaction they'll generate, e.g. "You'll never guess how X reacted when Y said their supporters are ignorant".

Occasionally it's gotten so bad that it resembles the trash talk before a wrestling match. The only difference is the prize is much bigger.

If people want to pick their president on the basis of how they make them feel rather than what they may actually do when in office, that's fine, as long as they realise that's what they're doing.

If politics was pure we would not have elections. Blame the game, not the man.

FA Hayek · 26-09-2016 1:21pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

The GOP platform that Trump is running under is the most anti-LGBT platform ever, endorsing nonsense practices such as conversion therapy.

Interesting you said the GOP platform, not the Trump platform. I see what you did there.

Suryavarman wrote: »

The polls have consistently shown that attacking Clinton on her husband's infidelities gains her sympathy and hurts Trump.

Again, this is 2016. Trump shots from the hip and does not care about polls or focus groups.

Suryavarman · 26-09-2016 1:37pm

FA Hayek wrote: »

Interesting you said the GOP platform, not the Trump platform. I see what you did there.

That's because the Trump website contains no information on LGBT rights. Trump on the other hand has endorsed the GOP platform.

Again, this is 2016. Trump shots from the hip and does not care about polls or focus groups.

Okay?

K-9 · 26-09-2016 1:48pm

FA Hayek wrote: »

Ironically he is probably the most pro LGBT GOP candidate for, well ever. He is after all a New Yorker. People want to label him as an a typical social conservative but he is anything but.

However, labels are easy in this post truth world and thus mud slinging is more palatable. You can say a lot about Trump but to say he is a social conservative is not one of them

You can apply any label to Trump.

He's a libertarian, he's non interventionist, he's not socially conservative despite controversial opinions on abortion...

He's whatever you are having yourself.

RobertKK · 26-09-2016 2:59pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

Clinton has already won the debate. When it was announced that she had invited Mark Cuban to the debate Trump took the bait and said he would invite Gennifer Flowers to the debate. Clinton has shown that she can get under his skin with a simple tweet. Imagine what she'll be able to do over the course of a 90 minute debate.

Gennifer Flowers will not be at the debate, though Gennifer is known to be supporting Trump.
I guess the answer to your "Imagine what she'll be able to do over the course of a 90 minute debate." would be no impact.

Brian? · 26-09-2016 3:01pm

FA Hayek wrote: »

Ironically he is probably the most pro LGBT GOP candidate for, well ever. He is after all a New Yorker. People want to label him as an a typical social conservative but he is anything but.

However, labels are easy in this post truth world and thus mud slinging is more palatable. You can say a lot about Trump but to say he is a social conservative is not one of them

You seen determined to miss my point. Trump isn't who I'm worried about, it's whomever he picks for the SCOTUS that worries me. He will not pick a moderate.

Brian? · 26-09-2016 3:04pm

K-9 wrote: »

You can apply any label to Trump.

He's a libertarian, he's non interventionist, he's not socially conservative despite controversial opinions on abortion...

He's whatever you are having yourself.

He's a populist demagogue. He doesn't have an ideology, he has an ego.

cowboyBuilder · 26-09-2016 4:01pm

So Sky News will show this live ?

RobertKK · 26-09-2016 4:08pm

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

So Sky News will show this live ?

Yes, most news channels will be showing this as it is a ratings guarantee.

RobertKK · 26-09-2016 4:16pm

In France, Francois Hollande is supporting Hillary as he really dislikes Trump.
Marine le Pen says she is supporting Trump as she believes Hillary means a lot more wars.

Hillary's role as secretary of state has been in my opinion something that was very damaging to her, even if she spins it as a positive and as experience.
Trump will go after this major weakness, he will paint her as being a war monger with bad judgment, something that is the case imo.
I don't support Marine le Pen as I don't agree with her politics, but she is right about Hillary, before anyone thinks I support her.

Suryavarman · 26-09-2016 4:57pm

RobertKK wrote: »

Gennifer Flowers will not be at the debate, though Gennifer is known to be supporting Trump.
I guess the answer to your "Imagine what she'll be able to do over the course of a 90 minute debate." would be no impact.

She can bait him with a simple tweet. She'll have close to 45 minutes of speaking time later. She'll easily bait him into saying something stupid again.

RobertKK · 26-09-2016 5:12pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

She can bait him with a simple tweet. She'll have close to 45 minutes of speaking time later. She'll easily bait him into saying something stupid again.

When was he last baited by a tweet?

The biggest mistake anyone can make about another human being is to think they are not clever enough to learn from previous mistakes.

Remember when people thought they were clever and laughed at Trump running for the presidency?
People thought he could not beat off 16 or so other career politicians.

The biggest fools in this election so far has not been Trump, but the people who thought Trump would fall flat on his face.
I remember on this forum reading opinions that Trump would bow out before the debates, as they did not take Trump seriously.

Most of us have been fools in some shape or form in regards to Trump. He has confounded opinion, and polls are showing the election is moving towards him and away from Hillary.

For tonight, none of us know what will happen, but it could help decide the election.
To assume Trump will fall for bait is to think Hillary is some great campaigner, she made hard work defeating Sanders despite a campaign by the party leaders to try and help her.
I watched Hillary say in a debate that she has experience and she is a former secretary of State, that is something Trump will easily tear apart given the mess the world is in.

Trump can destroy Hillary on her foreign policy record as it is abysmal.
I hope Trump brings up the reset button that Hillary gave Sergei Lavrov, it makes Hillary look like a simpleton on foreign policy.

TheDoctor · 26-09-2016 5:16pm

Cant get much closer than this

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

Suryavarman · 26-09-2016 5:38pm

RobertKK wrote: »

When was he last baited by a tweet?

...

Trump can destroy Hillary on her foreign policy record as it is abysmal.
I hope Trump brings up the reset button that Hillary gave Sergei Lavrov, it makes Hillary look like a simpleton on foreign policy.

He was last baited by a tweet 2 days ago.

Trump can't make anyone look like a simpleton on foreign policy. How is he supposed to criticise Clinton? By bringing up the interventions in Libya and Iraq that he supported? Or is it by boasting about his foreign policy which is nothing more than a love note to Putin?

Inquitus · 26-09-2016 5:54pm

TheDoctor wrote: »

Cant get much closer than this

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

That's tightened alot since I checked it this morning, no commentary provided as to what drove the change, must be some new State and/or national polling that puts Trump ahead. Was @ 60/40 at midday.

RobertKK · 26-09-2016 5:59pm

Suryavarman wrote: »

He was last baited by a tweet 2 days ago.

Trump can't make anyone look like a simpleton on foreign policy. How is he supposed to criticise Clinton? By bringing up the interventions in Libya and Iraq that he supported? Or is it by boasting about his foreign policy which is nothing more than a love note to Putin?

So you think Clinton got it right on Libya?
Do you think the reset button Hillary Clinton gave Sergei Lavrov was a love note to the Russians?
Boasting about foreign policy, something Hillary does, and calls it experience despite she helped contribute to a migrant crisis, supports FSA who say they want to kill Christians and Americans.
Signed off on a record arms deal with Saudi Arabia so they could got o war in Yemen.
Got the whole Arab Spring wrong, she talked about democracy, but when it came to Bahrain, her health complaint was deafness as they are US allies despite human rights abuses.
She was secretary of State when Obama laughed at Romney when he said Russia were a problem, maybe she was too busy giving arms deals to the donators from countries who donated money to the Clinton foundation.
No conflict of interest there...
Trump could ask why the Clintons support Paul Kagame whose former intelligence chief is under for human rights abuses/war crimes done under Kagame.
Kagame, a man the Clinton foundation gave an award to.
Trump could ask Hillary why after 8 years of Obama is the terrorism situation now worse than before.

There is a mountain of stuff that is not positive for Clinton. Experience should not be used when the words should be proven incompetence.

Christy42 · 26-09-2016 6:05pm

RobertKK wrote: »

So you think Clinton got it right on Libya?
Do you think the reset button Hillary Clinton gave Sergei Lavrov was a love note to the Russians?
Boasting about foreign policy, something Hillary does, and calls it experience despite she helped contribute to a migrant crisis, supports FSA who say they want to kill Christians and Americans.
Signed off on a record arms deal with Saudi Arabia so they could got o war in Yemen.
Got the whole Arab Spring wrong, she talked about democracy, but when it came to Bahrain, her health complaint was deafness as they are US allies despite human rights abuses.
She was secretary of State when Obama laughed at Romney when he said Russia were a problem, maybe she was too busy giving arms deals to the donators from countries who donated money to the Clinton foundation.
No conflict of interest there...
Trump could ask why the Clintons support Paul Kagame whose former intelligence chief is under for human rights abuses/war crimes done under Kagame.
Kagame, a man the Clinton foundation gave an award to.
Trump could ask Hillary why after 8 years of Obama is the terrorism situation now worse than before.

There is a mountain of stuff that is not positive for Clinton. Experience should not be used when the words should be proven incompetence.

Clinton could ask Trump what he has done in politics (aside from encourage a racist lie about Obama for the past 8 years).

He isn't interested in work or building a movement from the ground up. He simply wants all the power and he wants it now.

Sure loud shouty man has worked as a campaign strategy but I don't see it as intellegence. It is all he can do. Someone had to be able to do it well and it happens to be him.

I had already figured which way the French politicians would lean in this election though not for the stated reason (I guess the likely reason would get Marie into a spot of bother). Have to find non racist reasons to support the racist candidate so she can claim to not be a racist.

RobertKK · 26-09-2016 6:06pm

Inquitus wrote: »

That's tightened alot since I checked it this morning, no commentary provided as to what drove the change, must be some new State and/or national polling that puts Trump ahead. Was @ 60/40 at midday.

The CNN poll which shows Trump has made major gains in both Colorado and Pennsylvania.
They put Trump slightly ahead in Colorado where he had been down and he closed the gap to 1% in Pennsylvania when it had been leaning Clinton and about a 7% advantage to H.
Also talk that the Clinton campaign are pulling back the focus on Ohio as they believe Trump has a solid lead there.

Shane St. · 26-09-2016 6:11pm

Where can we watch this debate 2night?

RobertKK · 26-09-2016 6:24pm

Christy42 wrote: »

Clinton could ask Trump what he has done in politics (aside from encourage a racist lie about Obama for the past 8 years).

He isn't interested in work or building a movement from the ground up. He simply wants all the power and he wants it now.

Sure loud shouty man has worked as a campaign strategy but I don't see it as intellegence. It is all he can do. Someone had to be able to do it well and it happens to be him.

I had already figured which way the French politicians would lean in this election though not for the stated reason (I guess the likely reason would get Marie into a spot of bother). Have to find non racist reasons to support the racist candidate so she can claim to not be a racist.

It takes intelligence to get to the position Trump is in, the same can be said for Hillary but she had Bill.

It is wrong to say people who support Trump are racist, a lot of people are fed up with the status quo. Well one can take from your reply that it implies that Trump supporters are racist.

The reason Bush did not win the Republican nominee, and why Clinton struggled against Sanders is a lot of people are fed up with the establishment and the mess they have made, that does not mean Trump will not make a mess, but he is not seen as being the establishment.

Marine le Pen is anti-establishment and polls say she will do well in the French elections.
Brexit was anti-establishment, however much most of us wanted the UK to remain, we have to accept an anti-establishment vote won it for leave.

A lot of people are unhappy in the world we live in, and they see voting for the same type of people will just deliver the same results.
This is why Trump uses the 'What have you got to lose', it is playing on if you vote for the same people, you get the same results.
It doesn't mean voting for Trump means a different result, but whether we like it or not, the unknown outcome as in voting against what the media tell you, voting against the establishment is proving to be popular in the polling booths.

Look at how Hillary flipped on TPP, the establishment is living in times similar to when Marie Antoinette thought it was a good idea to tell peasants to eat cake.
Then thinking it was a good idea to bring her rich friend Mark Cuban to the debate...it is Marie Antoinette-esque.
Even CNBC say it is a mistake.

There's a reason Donald Trump has pulled into a tie or even into the lead in so many new national and battleground state polls: Hillary Clinton and her campaign are making mistakes. And no mistake is more obvious right now than Clinton's foolish decision to invite Dallas Mavericks owner and "Shark Tank" star Mark Cuban to the first presidential debate.
It's a mistake that shows just how unaware the Clinton camp is of how many voters see Clinton and her connections to rich and powerful elites and celebrities. Sure, Cuban's brash style and harsh attacks on Trump in recent weeks have grabbed headlines and burned up social media. But do they really fire up swing voters? Is a billionaire really the kind of person Clinton wants people to think she's fighting for? Or do they think Cuban's presence in the audience so close to the podium will somehow rattle a guy like Trump who's faced incessant heckling for 15 months on the campaign trail?
The answer to all the above questions is of course, "no." But the Clinton campaign's inability to see this problem in this one case is similar to its inability to see that, when one establishment figure after another endorses Clinton, it backfires in Trump's favor as he continues to make his case as a true anti-establishment candidate of change

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/26/it-was-a-huge-mistake-for-clinton-to-invite-billionaire-mark-cuban-to-the-debate-commentary.html

Hillary Clinton is the modern day Marie Antoinette.

oik · 26-09-2016 6:29pm

The 'actual report' whose findings you dismiss as being a Democrat investigation was undertaken by a body with a majority of Republicans; the Select Committee on Intelligence.

You don't know what a minority report is, else you would not have posted this.

oik · 26-09-2016 6:34pm

As Oscar Bravo pointed out his Supreme Court nominee will be a disaster for progressive social reform. In ways we don't even know yet. But I suspect it'll hit LGBT rights hard as well as stifle any kind of sensible gun control measures.

If Democrats want "progressive social reform" they should start winning elections and passing laws. You know, Democracy. Not turning out every 4 years so they can handpick 9 people to make laws in court without any oversight.

RobertKK · 26-09-2016 6:35pm

Shane St. wrote: »

Where can we watch this debate 2night?

Sky news
CNN
BBC
Fox News
Sky Atlantic
Channel 4
Al Jazeera

oik · 26-09-2016 6:42pm

I think this year we're finally seeing the electoral discourse complete the shift away from debate towards a form of entertainment.

The contest increasingly feels like reality TV. Talking points and controversies are often scripted less for their (frequently tenuous) relationship with the truth and more for the emotional reaction they'll generate, e.g. "You'll never guess how X reacted when Y said their supporters are ignorant".

Occasionally it's gotten so bad that it resembles the trash talk before a wrestling match. The only difference is the prize is much bigger.

If people want to pick their president on the basis of how they make them feel rather than what they may actually do when in office, that's fine, as long as they realise that's what they're doing.

It has never been about policy. Those who listened to the Nixon Kennedy debates on radio though Nixon won. Those who watched it on TV thought Kennedy won, because Nixon was sweating profusely.

Paul Ryan beat Joe Biden on points of fact and also about foreign policy predictions that came true, but Joe Biden appeared calm, affable and laughed his way through the debate without providing many substantive arguments, making Ryan look like a little boy arguing with uncle. Biden won in most people's eyes.

We all remember the turning point for Clinton and Bush when Bush was caught in the background checking his watch while Clinton gave an impassioned speech to a young woman about a topic no one remembers.

Key moments and appearances have been winning debates ever since TV and possibly since people went from reading transcripts in the paper to listening on radio. The shift to social media is just amplifying that trend, but the principle remains that actual policy has not been the factor in a debate since before any of us were born.

oik · 26-09-2016 6:45pm

His shortlist was so moronic it's hard to believe it was even serious.

How can a list of judges be characterised as "moronic".

Should I just take it as a given that all conservative judges are morons or do you have a particular bone to pick with anyone on the list?

PopePalpatine · 26-09-2016 6:47pm

oscarBravo wrote: »

I could (just) live with the idea of four years of Trump as president; it might at least show people who want to "shake things up" that being shaken up isn't inherently a good thing.

The problem with a Trump presidency is the list of candidates he's proposed for the Supreme Court. There's only so much damage he can do in the White House, but he could destroy the Court for a generation.

I've been having the same sort of thoughts as you. Perhaps a Trump reign would put the Democrats off ever selecting such a consummate "Establishment" candidate again, but at what cost? $5.3 TRILLION is a fair estimate, and that's just his budget plans.

oik · 26-09-2016 6:47pm

I was watching Anderson Cooper on CNN last night.
The consensus seemed to be no one knows what will happen tonight.

CNN/ORC have two new polls which shows the Trump momentum is continuing.

Colorado:
Trump 42%
Hillary 41%
Johnson 13%
Stein 3%

In Pennsylvania where Hillary did have a big lead.
Hillary 45%
Trump 44%
Johnson 6%
Stein 3%

The polls found that the two hanger on candidates have been taking most of the support away from Hillary and if their poll numbers weaken, then Hillary would be the main beneficiary in those states.

Nate Silver has commented that the election looks similar to Brexit.

Trump taking the lead in Colorado, assuming he hasn't been passed out in other states means that based on the latest polling if the election were held today he would get to 270.

Christy42 · 26-09-2016 6:51pm

RobertKK wrote: »

It takes intelligence to get to the position Trump is in, the same can be said for Hillary but she had Bill.

It is wrong to say people who support Trump are racist, a lot of people are fed up with the status quo. Well one can take from your reply that it implies that Trump supporters are racist.

The reason Bush did not win the Republican nominee, and why Clinton struggled against Sanders is a lot of people are fed up with the establishment and the mess they have made, that does not mean Trump will not make a mess, but he is not seen as being the establishment.

Marine le Pen is anti-establishment and polls say she will do well in the French elections.
Brexit was anti-establishment, however much most of us wanted the UK to remain, we have to accept an anti-establishment vote won it for leave.

A lot of people are unhappy in the world we live in, and they see voting for the same type of people will just deliver the same results.
This is why Trump uses the 'What have you got to lose', it is playing on if you vote for the same people, you get the same results.
It doesn't mean voting for Trump means a different result, but whether we like it or not, the unknown outcome as in voting against what the media tell you, voting against the establishment is proving to be popular in the polling booths.

Look at how Hillary flipped on TPP, the establishment is living in times similar to when Marie Antoinette thought it was a good idea to tell peasants to eat cake.
Then thinking it was a good idea to bring her rich friend Mark Cuban to the debate...it is Marie Antoinette-esque.
Even CNBC say it is a mistake.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/26/it-was-a-huge-mistake-for-clinton-to-invite-billionaire-mark-cuban-to-the-debate-commentary.html

Hillary Clinton is the modern day Marie Antoinette.

Why does it take intellegence? It obviously requires a rich white shouty man in the right place. The odds of that man existing were quite high and that man has managed to reach this point. That is the most ridiculous evidence of someone's intellegence I have ever seen. I am aware that voting for anything different is seen as a good idea and is working well (which would speak against Trump being their due to intellegence given Farage won a vote that way) but that does not mean it is a good idea.

I did not say all Trump supporters were racist. I said one was (well and Trump so I said two were racist). I am pretty confident that two is lowballing the number by quite a bit as well. Heck it even lowballs the number of racists in Hillary's side in all likelihood.

Trump is running his campaign on being a rich man and yet it is a mistake for Hillary to have one at the debate? I am sure it is a mistake but only because they seem to be measured on different standards.

oik · 26-09-2016 6:51pm

I've been having the same sort of thoughts as you. Perhaps a Trump reign would put the Democrats off ever selecting such a consummate "Establishment" candidate again, but at what cost? $5.3 TRILLION is a fair estimate, and that's just his budget plans.

Do you think he'll actually implement a plan that everyone (including him presumably) knows won't work, you do you think he'll moderate his plan down to something more workable?

Thing I like about Trump is that typically politicians who talk about cutting taxes or raising spending don't like to talk about the deficit and vice versa. When did Bernie Sanders ever address the deficit? Trump occupies both sides of the fence, which makes me think that when in office he will have the mandate to do whatever works rather than what he's promised to do, because he has promised to do both. That means he doesn't waste much political capital doing things he needs to do with the budget and can use it on more reforms.

Brian? · 26-09-2016 6:56pm

oik wrote: »

If Democrats want "progressive social reform" they should start winning elections and passing laws. You know, Democracy. Not turning out every 4 years so they can handpick 9 people to make laws in court without any oversight.

This is quite a bizarre statement. Obama is a democratically elected president who's duty it is to nominate a supreme courts judge. The GOP controlled Senate are refusing to consider the nominee. Where's the democracy there?

oik · 26-09-2016 7:02pm

Why does it take intellegence? It obviously requires a rich white shouty man in the right place. The odds of that man existing were quite high and that man has managed to reach this point. That is the most ridiculous evidence of someone's intellegence I have ever seen. I am aware that voting for anything different is seen as a good idea and is working well (which would speak against Trump being their due to intellegence given Farage won a vote that way) but that does not mean it is a good idea.

I did not say all Trump supporters were racist. I said one was (well and Trump so I said two were racist). I am pretty confident that two is lowballing the number by quite a bit as well. Heck it even lowballs the number of racists in Hillary's side in all likelihood.

Trump is running his campaign on being a rich man and yet it is a mistake for Hillary to have one at the debate? I am sure it is a mistake but only because they seem to be measured on different standards.

The inability to recognise intelligence in other people is a sign of a lack of intelligence. Trump and Farage are both very intelligent men. Trump isn't the type to sit down and read policy briefs all day but he could run rings around you in virtually any context. Trump's emotional intelligence is clearly off the charts. His ability to read crowds and individuals and illicit the right responses without any preparation is incredible.

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments