2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

The Clinton campaign have bought ad space for the weather channel so people fearing for their lives and their homes and who tune in to the weather channel to see the latest on hurricane Matthew will see Hillary promoting herself/attacking Trump.

If it were trump, it would be "smart"

Overheal

RobertKK wrote: »

Obama went to Louisiana.

Not in the immediate aftermath. Check the timeline.

RobertKK

Hillary Clinton has cancelled the ad space she bought on the weather channel after accusations of trying to take advantage of a disaster.

Overheal

Watch Trump do it now. $5.

RobertKK

Overheal wrote: »

Not in the immediate aftermath. Check the timeline.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/23/politics/obama-louisiana-tour-criticism/

Trump's visit was well-received by local officials, and for a moment it gave Trump a chance to reveal a presidential timber that he insists he has.
"Because it helped to shine a spotlight on Louisiana and on the dire situation that we have here, it was helpful," said John Bel Edwards, the state's Democratic governor.

So the Governor thanked Trump.
Obama's people complained Trump was taking advantage of the situation, because Obama was too busy holidaying at Martha's Vineyard.

Billy86

On one hand, he donated supplies. On the other, he also very much used it as a photo op.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/john-bel-edwards-trump-louisiana-visit-227194#ixzz4MKvU8kmk

The office of Louisiana Gov. John Bel Edwards signaled that Donald Trump is welcome to visit Louisiana in the wake of destructive flooding, but only if he does not use it for political gain.

"Donald Trump hasn’t called the governor to inform him of his visit," a spokesman for Edwards' office said in a statement Thursday evening. "We welcome him to LA but not for a photo-op. Instead we hope he’ll consider volunteering or making a sizable donation to the LA Flood Relief Fund to help the victims of the storm."

RobertKK

Overheal wrote: »

Watch Trump do it now. $5.

If he is stupid he would.

I mean whoever was to do it, it doesn't matter, the perception is really bad, it says 'you might be fleeing for your lives, losing your home maybe, but I am here to take advantage of the situation'.
Whoever in her campaign thought it was a good idea should be fired for stupidity.
Any of us here and we are not paid could have told any politician that it was an idea that should never have been allowed to get to the stage it did.

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

Obama went to Louisiana.

RobertKK wrote: »

...Obama was too busy holidaying at Martha's Vineyard.

You've learned a lot from the Trump campaign, at least.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Watch Trump do it now. $5.

Trump will probably fly down and give aid and comfort to the stricken and to bring attention to those badly affected the by hurricane. Hillary will probably remain hunkered down in her underground bunker recuperating from whatever ails her.

Overheal

Amerika wrote: »

Trump will probably fly down and give aid and comfort to the stricken and to bring attention to those badly affected the by hurricane. Hillary will probably remain hunkered down in her underground bunker recuperating from whatever ails her.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

You're getting sightings of creepy clowns, too, I see. :P

Billy86

Amerika wrote: »

Trump will probably fly down and give aid and comfort to the stricken and to bring attention to those badly affected the by hurricane. Hillary will probably remain hunkered down in her underground bunker recuperating from whatever ails her.

Well, we all know if Clinton goes to Florida, who the first person on boards to try to criticise her for it will be.

RobertKK

oscarBravo wrote: »

You've learned a lot from the Trump campaign, at least.

From CNN

Obama's vacation ended Sunday, and the White House has maintained that he has been regularly briefed by senior staff on the situation on the ground and top administration officials also were sent to the Louisiana. Yet his response has earned some comparisons to how George W. Bush handled another natural catastrophe in a Louisiana city, New Orleans, during Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Overheal

Its a damn shame FL Gov. Rick Scott isn't up for election, because he'd be out on his ass this cycle if he was. Between the medicare fraud scandals, and the water/algae crisis - in which his office has actually loosened up restrictions on whats deemed 'safe' in the tap - the governor must surely know he won't be securing re-election, short of running a race against an invalid.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-florida-water-disasters-20160717-story.html

The bigger concern, with Hurricane Matthew, is what the algae situation will do in the wake of the storm. Especially if utilities go down, with millions evacuated, it's just time before backyards and bodies of water already teeming with the ooze bloom out of control, creating a post-disaster crisis. Compound that with the risks associated with Zika outbreaks, and Florida has a real crisis on its hands.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

Its a damn shame FL Gov. Rick Scott isn't up for election, because he'd be out on his ass this cycle if he was. Between the medicare fraud scandals, and the water/algae crisis - in which his office has actually loosened up restrictions on whats deemed 'safe' in the tap - the governor must surely know he won't be securing re-election, short of running a race against an invalid.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/opinion/os-ed-florida-water-disasters-20160717-story.html

The bigger concern, with Hurricane Matthew, is what the algae situation will do in the wake of the storm. Especially if utilities go down, with millions evacuated, it's just time before backyards and bodies of water already teeming with the ooze bloom out of control, creating a post-disaster crisis. Compound that with the risks associated with Zika outbreaks, and Florida has a real crisis on its hands.

Is Rick Scott running for president on the The United States Pirate Party ticket?

Overheal

no but he was on the Trump VP shortlist afaik.

Amerika

Overheal wrote: »

no but he was on the Trump VP shortlist afaik.

No, he wasn’t. He was on some long list that came out from uninformed political wonks who ‘thought’ they knew who Trump might put on the VP candidate list.

BorneTobyWilde

http://www.inquisitr.com/3566389/donald-trump-cardiac-arrest-hoax-claims-the-republican-nominee-had-a-heart-attack/

RIB

Black Swan

Amerika wrote: »

Trump pulled his punches in the first debate and was reluctant to aggressively attack Hillary. She responded to that gentle gesture with tons of negative and vicious attack ads against Trump.

Are you suggesting that Trump was the victim? Sorry, after viewing months of Trump's "outrageous" and "senationalist" mud slinging blusters from his political podium, with him unable to speak presidential with all his childish, bullying, playground name-calling ("Crooked..."), to claim him now evidencing "gentle gestures" belongs on an SNL skit or a humourous scene from Seth Meyer's Closer Look. As for political ads, the Clinton and Trump ads I've seen were both mud slinging, and to suggest that one's mud was "more gentle" than another's was humourous indeed. Mud is mud.

Amerika wrote: »

She therefore has given him full license to go nuclear on her, with no self-restraint in the second debate.

Going "nuclear on her" may play into her hands, making Trump look the bully and unpresidential. Hate or love Hillary Clinton (methinks she is boring, bureaucratic, and unimaginative), she has sat for hours before Republican controlled committees with each Senator or Representative with an axe to grind taking turns hour-after-hour attempting to break her down without success. I can think of only one time that she threw up her hands and lost it for a moment during one extraordinary several hours long hearing (not a simple 90 minute debate). Trump and his supporters may think he is the 2nd coming, but so did several of those Republican politicians that accosted Hillary Clinton year-after-year. With Trump's frequently demonstrated thin skin, I doubt that he could have maintained a professional attitude during similar several hour long Congressional inquisitions.

Amerika wrote: »

He shouldn’t let her get him on the defensive and merely respond to her attacks with witty and snappy retorts that call her out on similar circumstances, and that will resonate with the voters. I hoping for a bloodbath on Sunday.

If the former US Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton shows, I doubt that your prediction will hold true. It may be a standoff at best for Trump, with no winners (although Trump lovers will claim victory no matter what happens, as will Clinton lovers).

The only thing I'm wondering about is whether a completely transformed presidential Trump will show, or the childish name-calling playground bully of the Republican primaries and Trump rallies? Who knows? I guess we shall see Sunday (across the pond day and time).

K-9

RobertKK wrote: »

That is what I said, neither Clinton or Trump will pull back on drone strikes, which kill mostly civilians, not terrorists.

Yep, we aren't going back to bayonets and horses as Obama famously pointed out.

At least you are ceding there's little difference between them on drones.

K-9

RobertKK wrote: »

The problem with drone strikes is they are used too much.

The problem is the perception of a president, Obama seem as good, and Bush bad.
Yet on day 3 of the Obama presidency, children were being killed in drone strikes he ordered.
Will it be the same based on who wins the election, Hillary gets a free ride and Trump not?

I mean you have people who say 'I love Obama', nothing about it being the president being responsible for the following:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2014/nov/24/-sp-us-drone-strikes-kill-1147 2014


We have seen people on this thread talk about Trump saying he would kill families of terrorists, when it is clear some don't know what the situation really is.
Imagine if Trump as president was responsible for over 1,100 innocent people being killed in a bid to kill 41 suspected terrorists, would he get away with such crimes?
Hillary should be asked if she can stand over that record by Obama.
Trump asked what would he do.
This is the problem with this election, a lot of really serious stuff is not being discussed for what is at times like a tabloid driven election.

Unfortunately with US foreign policy you are looking for the candidate who will do the least damage possible.

We've a fair idea of what Clinton will be like but all we can go in with Trump is his words and behavior in the campaign. For me foreign policy is Trump's weakest point, he makes Hillary look Presidential! He's too erratic and prone to going off message on a solo run to please a crowd.

Billy86

Black Swan wrote: »

a humourous scene from Seth Meyer's Closer Look

For anyone who did a TL;DR or just skimmed this post, or even just didn't click the link - do yourselves a favour, click it, and skip to 9:20. :eek:

Rjd2

Overheal wrote: »

You mean like how the Governor of Louisiana asked the candidates and the President not to disrupt from the recovery mission (because their visits require security details, which diverges resources), and Donald Trump went, and said "he didn't want cameras" but still showed up in a suit and a MAGA hat and him and pence were taped handing out toys from a truck, and that video ended up being plastered in all of their commercials?

I think we're talking about the same thing, just at cross purposes.

I am not even as bothered about that as others are.

While I assume the people might have been the visit touching, did he actually raise money for them? And no not Trump merchandise.

Hilary stayed clear, but pretty sure she sorted some fund raising on her site.

A Trump cap might be nice for some, but I'd rather the money:)

If he did some fund raising, after the photo op, then props to be fair.

K-9

@Overheal.

Stop with the picture only posts please, last warning.

Try and add a couple of lines rebutting a post at least.

Christy42

Amerika wrote: »

Trump pulled his punches in the first debate and was reluctant to aggressively attack Hillary. She responded to that gentle gesture with tons of negative and vicious attack ads against Trump. She therefore has given him full license to go nuclear on her, with no self-restraint in the second debate. He shouldn’t let her get him on the defensive and merely respond to her attacks with witty and snappy retorts that call her out on similar circumstances, and that will resonate with the voters. I hoping for a bloodbath on Sunday.

Trump has failed to pull his punches for the past year. It seems incredibly unlikely he managed it then to his own detriment. Especially when he was so obviously losing by the end and out of control. I also don't think repeatedly interrupting Hillary can be called gentle either.

I do feel that there will be a blood bath in the debate but it will simply be Trump killing Trump.

Pro Hoc Vice

Amerika wrote: »

And if Hillary bring this up again, or anything about his treatment of women, he should respond with something like “If you’d like to discuss the treatment of women, I’m more than happy to talk about your husband’s long record of rape and sexual assault, and your dogged efforts to smear and destroy the women who were involved with or accused your husband of such crimes.” (credit here goes to Monica Crowley)

Then he opens his own record of alleged rape and child abuse and if bringing spouses into it the allegation his wife was a paid for bride.

johnnyskeleton

Mod note:

Conditioned games banned for more personal abuse

PopePalpatine

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Then he opens his own record of alleged rape and child abuse and if bringing spouses into it the allegation his wife was a paid for bride.

Not to mention Ivana's own rape allegations against him.

Zubeneschamali

Amerika wrote: »

She therefore has given him full license to go nuclear on her

He might as well, because he's toast if he continues as is. But it is obvious that Hillary wanted him to go nuclear, she stood there laughing at him. I predict an even more shambolic Trump performance, and an even more resounding win for Hillary.

Of course Trump will claim he won (again), and the 27% of the electorate who would vote for Kim Jong-Un if he ran with with an R by his name will stick with him.

Billy86

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Of course Trump will claim he won (again), and the 27% of the electorate who would vote for Kim Jong-Un if he ran with with an R by his name will with him.

That really is the saddest truth of this election and the whole US political system. This kind of carry on - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101267130&postcount=2693 - would cost political parties in most countries, but in the US it is celebrated as some kind of win for 'our team'.

There are plenty of Democrat voters guilty of it too, though I reckon the FOX/Breitbart/Tea Party/etc style lunacy and paranoia that has really spread through the Republican party over the last 15-20 years (and even moreso during the last 8) has them far more susceptible to it.

Johnson and Stein should have at least a 20% larger share of the vote between them in polls, based on how poor the two main candidates are. But in the US, the letters R and D are as basically fundamentalist religions in disguise, so if a perfect combination of JFK/FDR/you name whomever else ran a flawless campaign with significant money behind it and ran against 2 Donald Trumps... they still wouldn't get anywhere close to the presidency, no matter what.

It'll be the death of the US, and quite possibly in our lifetimes. I'm not even sure that's particularly hyperbolic to say at this point.

alastair

RobertKK wrote: »

So what, they believe the government.

The former drone operators are more credible.

Impartial observers are, by their nature, impartial. They don't 'believe' any one source, but collate reports from various sources. They don't make any claim that civilian deaths outnumber combatant deaths from drone attacks. It's a claim you made without any evidence.

marienbad

Billy86 wrote: »

That really is the saddest truth of this election and the whole US political system. This kind of carry on - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101267130&postcount=2693 - would cost political parties in most countries, but in the US it is celebrated as some kind of win for 'our team'.

There are plenty of Democrat voters guilty of it too, though I reckon the FOX/Breitbart/Tea Party/etc style lunacy and paranoia that has really spread through the Republican party over the last 15-20 years (and even moreso during the last 8) has them far more susceptible to it.

Johnson and Stein should have at least a 20% larger share of the vote between them in polls, based on how poor the two main candidates are. But in the US, the letters R and D are as basically fundamentalist religions in disguise, so if a perfect combination of JFK/FDR/you name whomever else ran a flawless campaign with significant money behind it and ran against 2 Donald Trumps... they still wouldn't get anywhere close to the presidency, no matter what.

It'll be the death of the US, and quite possibly in our lifetimes. I'm not even sure that's particularly hyperbolic to say at this point.

That is not really that different from anywhere else though , look at Ireland , Fianna Fail would be back in power if there was an election right now and FG back to their solid core vote . Not very different in the UK with the Cons and Labour parties .

Amerika

Black Swan wrote: »

Are you suggesting that Trump was the victim? Sorry, after viewing months of Trump's "outrageous" and "senationalist" mud slinging blusters from his political podium, with him unable to speak presidential with all his childish, bullying, playground name-calling ("Crooked..."), to claim him now evidencing "gentle gestures" belongs on an SNL skit or a humourous scene from Seth Meyer's Closer Look. As for political ads, the Clinton and Trump ads I've seen were both mud slinging, and to suggest that one's mud was "more gentle" than another's was humourous indeed. Mud is mud.

Where do you get this stuff from? Who said Trump was the victim? Trump pulled his punches voluntarily on advice of his closest aides who were telling him that he needed to display reasonableness and confidence. He showed an even temperament and a fundamental command of the issues. He pulled that off which caused him to miss a few opportunities to attack Hillary on her claims. I don't see that happening in the second debate.

alastair

Amerika wrote: »

Where do you get this stuff from? Who said Trump was the victim? Trump pulled his punches voluntarily on advice of his closest aides who were telling him that he needed to display reasonableness and confidence. He showed an even temperament and a fundamental command of the issues. He pulled that off which caused him to miss a few opportunities to attack Hillary on her claims. I don't see that happening in the second debate.

Deary me. At what point did Trump display "a fundamental command of the issues"? Aside from the petulance demonstrated, the weakest aspect of his debate performance was his inability to specifically tackle the issues, preferring to wander off on confused, pointless streams of consciousness.

Billy86

marienbad wrote: »

That is not really that different from anywhere else though , look at Ireland , Fianna Fail would be back in power if there was an election right now and FG back to their solid core vote . Not very different in the UK with the Cons and Labour parties .

True to quite an extent, but had our situation in 2011 been hypthetically exactly mirrored in the US with the GOP in place of FF, I reckon rather than 17% they would have got around 30-35%.

Not sure if you saw the story I linked to in my post, but it's a classic case of just how cancerous it is over there - party members and their bases patting each other on the back over screwing the country over in order to make the opposition look bad. The extent and openness of that one is just nothing short of amazing.

A Little Pony

If Trump can win a few of the yankee states like Florida and Ohio, then it is over. If Hillary wins Florida, then it is over. Unless Trump can win Maine/NH etc. But he absolutely MUST win all of the South, including Virginia.

Billy86

A Little Pony wrote: »

If Trump can win a few of the yankee states like Florida and Ohio, then it is over. If Hillary wins Florida, then it is over. Unless Trump can win Maine/NH etc. But he absolutely MUST win all of the South, including Virginia.

Trump has a 1.6 point lead in Ohio as of now, while Clinton 2.4 in Florida. Still a month to go, but Virginia looks gone for Trump at the moment - 7.0 point lead for Clinton. To put that in perspective, it's a bigger lead than Trump has in Texas (6.7).

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html

A Little Pony

I am messing with the 270 to win website which is basically the electoral map for the election. Trump CAN afford to lose Florida and Virginia but he must win every other Southern state and win all the rust belt states, which includes Pennsylvania.

http://www.270towin.com/maps/mNxrj

Trump winning would look something like that I think.

Quin_Dub

A Little Pony wrote: »

I am messing with the 270 to win website which is basically the electoral map for the election. Trump CAN afford to lose Florida and Virginia but he must win every other Southern state and win all the rust belt states, which includes Pennsylvania.

http://www.270towin.com/maps/mNxrj

Trump winning would look something like that I think.

You're giving Trump States like Michigan,Illinois & Philadelphia, where Clinton has a 7,14 and 6 point lead respectively..

He simply will not turn those kinds of leads around in less than 30 days..

Take those 3 away and he can win Florida all day long he still loses..and he's not looking good for Florida right now, although oddly enough the hurricane could help him , impacting Voter registration and early voters.

RobertKK

K-9 wrote: »

Unfortunately with US foreign policy you are looking for the candidate who will do the least damage possible.

We've a fair idea of what Clinton will be like but all we can go in with Trump is his words and behavior in the campaign. For me foreign policy is Trump's weakest point, he makes Hillary look Presidential! He's too erratic and prone to going off message on a solo run to please a crowd.

Given Hillary was secretary of state, when relations went from a reset button and a fresh start under Obama, to Russia stepping in and stopping any attack on Assad and bad relations with the US and the Ukraine situation.
To a point where today a Russian newspaper said if Assad is attacked by the US, it could lead to world war 3, and given Hillary wants to remove Assad which her Saudi allies want - the Saudis who have a bad relationship with Russia.
It could be argued that Hillary is the biggest danger, given her record for supporting regime change.

Overheal

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Take those 3 away and he can win Florida all day long he still loses..and he's not looking good for Florida right now, although oddly enough the hurricane could help him , impacting Voter registration and early voters.

Only if he makes some kind of genuine humanitarian effort, and expect it to be in a swing area.

TheDoctor

Looking across polls from the last week, Trump really blew it at the first debate.

He had all the momentum at the point but managed to reverse it with his shambles of a performance.

26 September 2016 - The day Trump lost the election?

oscarBravo

RobertKK wrote: »

It could be argued that Hillary is the biggest danger, given her record for supporting regime change.

So your vote is for the candidate who'll roll over and give Putin whatever he wants?

cowboyBuilder

TheDoctor wrote: »

Looking across polls from the last week, Trump really blew it at the first debate.

He had all the momentum at the point but managed to reverse it with his shambles of a performance.

26 September 2016 - The day Trump lost the election?

Let's see how he does on Monday night, either way whoever wins it will be great entertainment, how long do you give Hillary in office before she is impeached due to health issues, or just collapses playing with Bosco the dog on the white house lawn ?

Overheal

Since the debate the FiveThirtyEight model has changed from 2:1 Hillary (66.67%) to 4:1 Hillary (79.3%).

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Zubeneschamali

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

how long do you give Hillary in office before she is impeached due to health issues, or just collapses playing with Bosco the dog on the white house lawn ?

8 years.

TheDoctor

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Let's see how he does on Monday night, either way whoever wins it will be great entertainment, how long do you give Hillary in office before she is impeached due to health issues, or just collapses playing with Bosco the dog on the white house lawn ?

Isn't that why there's a VP on the ticket?

TheDoctor

Overheal wrote: »

Since the debate the FiveThirtyEight model has changed from 2:1 Hillary (66.67%) to 4:1 Hillary (79.3%).

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

Look at the odds if the election was held today.

86.5% - 13.5%

Suryavarman

RobertKK wrote: »

Given Hillary was secretary of state, when relations went from a reset button and a fresh start under Obama, to Russia stepping in and stopping any attack on Assad and bad relations with the US and the Ukraine situation.
To a point where today a Russian newspaper said if Assad is attacked by the US, it could lead to world war 3, and given Hillary wants to remove Assad which her Saudi allies want - the Saudis who have a bad relationship with Russia.
It could be argued that Hillary is the biggest danger, given her record for supporting regime change.

That's just not going to happen. Putin isn't stupid.

Overheal

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

Let's see how he does on Monday night, either way whoever wins it will be great entertainment, how long do you give Hillary in office before she is impeached due to health issues, or just collapses playing with Bosco the dog on the white house lawn ?

It could but I doubt it would. If it was over health issues, that's what the 25th Amendment is for, not impeachment proceedings. And the 25th Amendment doesn't move an inch unless the Vice President also thinks she is unfit, along with a majority of the chief of staff think so as well. Congress can enact the 25th instead of the Chiefs, but I'm not sure on the specifics, and even if they did, they still need the nod from the Vice President.