2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

meepins

InTheTrees wrote: »

Huh? Gainful employment?

Until he decides he doesnt want to pay. Or until he declares bancrupcy. Or tries to bust a union.

He represents the worst kind of selfish uncaring exploitive boss and he'd be a nightmare for working Americans.

That's some intimate knowlege you have there of Trumps business dealings, where did you get all that from?

Overheal

meepins wrote: »

I'm not clicking your links, say what you have to say. Has he or has he not given working Americans employment in his various companies?

He has a long record of employing immigrant workers, underpaying them, and stiffing contractors.

He also frequently licenses his Brand name to companies and hotels, etc. and actually doesn't employ or manage people at those locations, in a lot of other situations.

So no, he doesn't have a great record of providing gainful employment to people.

Overheal

meepins wrote: »

That's some intimate knowlege you have there of Trumps business dealings, where did you get all that from?

You're the one who didn't want to click on sources provided...

Black Swan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Trump has appealed to the evangelicals on one extreme to the Sanders supporters on the other.

Are you suggesting that Sanders supporters will join evangelicals to support Donald Trump? The faith-based creationist evangelicals and the highly educated, rational and evolutionary Sanders supporters? Or that the vast majority of Sanders supporters would consider voting for Donald Trump, some rich kid pampered from birth, and member of the obscenely ultra-rich 1% that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren want to tax and were totally against?

Overheal

Black Swan wrote: »

Are you suggesting that Sanders supporters will join evangelicals to support Donald Trump? The faith-based creationist evangelicals and the highly educated, rational and evolutionary Sanders supporters? Or that the vast majority of Sanders supporters would consider voting for Donald Trump, some rich kid pampered from birth, and member of the obscenely ultra-rich 1% that Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren want to tax and were totally against?

The broader the brushstroke the more holes/streaks that appear in the argument.

aloyisious

meepins wrote: »

I still think he will be president and it will be a remarkable achievement.
As for him having no concrete objectives.. it doesn't get more concrete than a big wall on the border with Mexico.

I agree with your first, if it happens. Re the wall, I can't see the Mexicans willingly building it, unless of course Don uses his presidential muscle (the military) to force it on them. That would be like presidential warmongering, something Don's supporters here object to strongly.

Billy86

meepins wrote: »

That's some intimate knowlege you have there of Trumps business dealings, where did you get all that from?

Probably by clicking links and actually attempting to educate himself, rather than celebrating ignorance and holding off against reality, that being the inevitable humiliating defeat Trump is going to experience three and a half weeks.

InTheTrees

Billy86 wrote: »

Probably by clicking links and actually attempting to educate himself, rather than celebrating ignorance and holding off against reality, that being the inevitable humiliating defeat Trump is going to experience three and a half weeks.

Three weeks and a day. Plus they say the polls six days before election day are generally how it finishes up so we're looking at about a fortnight.

mrkiscool2

Billy86 wrote: »

Probably by clicking links and actually attempting to educate himself, rather than celebrating ignorance and holding off against reality, that being the inevitable humiliating defeat Trump is going to experience three and a half weeks.

Doubt it will be humiliating now. I honestly hate every single candidate for different reasons, but it won't be an 11% victory for Clinton as a lot of democratic news outlet "polls" suggest. It may be somewhere between 2-5% which, for a candidate with absolutely no political background, isn't humiliating.

Billy86

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Doubt it will be humiliating now. I honestly hate every single candidate for different reasons, but it won't be an 11% victory for Clinton as a lot of democratic news outlet "polls" suggest. It may be somewhere between 2-5% which, for a candidate with absolutely no political background, isn't humiliating.

I'm not that fond of Clinton myself, but my guess is she gets at least 67% of the EC votes which is all that really matters, but will also be closer to 10% of the popular vote than 5%, and might well surpass that. Trump has done an absolutely excellent job in the last month or so of mobilising his opposition, especially since the pussy incident.

Black Swan

meepins wrote: »

As for him having no concrete objectives.. it doesn't get more concrete than a big wall on the border with Mexico.

How high will be this wall be along the US borders? How many thousands of miles long? Will it have to be 45,000 feet high and surround the entire US to keep out the 5 million that mostly fly into the US and overstay their visas of the 11 million illegals currently in the US? All humour aside, you do realise that if you build a southern Trump Wall, that you may discourage many Mexican illegals from leaving the US, with a net loss of 140,000 between 2009 and 2014. Before forming an opinion as the merits of building Trump Wall, it's good to review the research information provided by the Pew Research Center regarding this issue, and not just believe what comes out of Donald Trump's unsubstantiated MOUTH.

Zubeneschamali

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Doubt it will be humiliating now. I honestly hate every single candidate for different reasons

It won't be humiliating for all the candidates you hate: just Donald.

Overheal

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Doubt it will be humiliating now. I honestly hate every single candidate for different reasons, but it won't be an 11% victory for Clinton as a lot of democratic news outlet "polls" suggest. It may be somewhere between 2-5% which, for a candidate with absolutely no political background, isn't humiliating.

The popular vote will be quite a bit narrower than the electoral votes, Trump has to fight the statistics to get past 200 EVs, much less 270 needed to win the race. Most projections put Clinton well over 300 EVs.

aloyisious

Overheal wrote: »

He also frequently licenses his Brand name to companies and hotels, etc. and actually doesn't employ or manage people at those locations, in a lot of other situations.

So no, he doesn't have a great record of providing gainful employment to people.

And that includes one hotel complex in Mexico, not the US, which failed and from which Don withdrew permission for his name to be used after it ran into financial trouble, then he went on to sue the LA, US, Co concerned.... Naturally enough, the complex would have employed Mexicans, as it was outside US territory.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjQo8KBvODPAhXnJcAKHYfjBbwQFgggMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTrump_Ocean_Resort_Baja_Mexico&usg=AFQjCNHasxW5tflh-LHrRG9W41bzB6afHw

mrkiscool2

Billy86 wrote: »

I'm not that fond of Clinton myself, but my guess is she gets at least 67% of the EC votes which is all that really matters, but will also be closer to 10% of the popular vote than 5%, and might well surpass that. Trump has done an absolutely excellent job in the last month or so of mobilising his opposition, especially since the pussy incident.

Eh, the highest polls are predicting around 67%, the consensus is around 55-60 of the EC votes, assuming no independents take any states and Bernie isn't wrote-in in Vermont. And yeah, it won't be anything above 10% anyway, I'm going to go maybe 5% of the popular vote win to Clinton to be fair! Don't think that Trump will win anyways!

Overheal

http://fivethirtyeight.com is worth placing your bets on. It's been frighteningly accurate the last few presidential elections.

Billy86

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Eh, the highest polls are predicting around 67%, the consensus is around 55-60 of the EC votes, assuming no independents take any states and Bernie isn't wrote-in in Vermont. And yeah, it won't be anything above 10% anyway, I'm going to go maybe 5% of the popular vote win to Clinton to be fair! Don't think that Trump will win anyways!

Afraid not, 538.8 (who got 50 of 50 states correct in 2012, and 49 correct in 2008) has her at 63%, which is pretty much exactly what RCP has it at in their 'no toss ups' map.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map_no_toss_ups_race_changes.html

I can't see that gap doing anything but continue to widen in the next three weeks to be honest. Trump's only real hope, not of winning because that is completely out the window, but of even just saving some face, is for him to have the most unlikely excellent performance since Old School and FOX to do him favour after favour in the final debate.

aloyisious

I'm left wondering how many republicans, usually committed to their party, will just boycott the vote in disgust over Trump and the internal party bickering. I had a look online and there is one, from Rasmussen, which, though recent seem's slightly dated.

meepins

Overheal wrote: »

You're the one who didn't want to click on sources provided...

I don't give clicks to mainstream media outlets when it can be avoided. They have demonstrated quite successfully that they're not trustworthy. A poll done recently by the American Press institute found only 6% of Americans had a 'great deal of confidence' in the press. It's a different story altogether on here though going by the constant stream of posts I read where people just mindlessly regurgitate their propaganda without question.

Billy86

meepins wrote: »

I don't give clicks to mainstream media outlets when it can be avoided. They have demonstrated quite successfully that they're not trustworthy. A poll done recently by the American Press institute found only 6% of Americans had a 'great deal of confidence' in the press. It's a different story altogether on here though going by the constant stream of posts I read where people just mindlessly regurgitate their propaganda without question.

Where do you get your news then, out of interest?

Overheal

meepins wrote: »

I don't give clicks to mainstream media outlets when it can be avoided. They have demonstrated quite successfully that they're not trustworthy. A poll done recently by the American Press institute found only 6% of Americans had a 'great deal of confidence' in the press. It's a different story altogether on here though going by the constant stream of posts I read where people just mindlessly regurgitate their propaganda without question.

You see mindless regurgitation, and not intelligent filtering. That's your problem, which nobody else can really help you with.

If you want to play in this conversation with special goalposts though, I won't accommodate you for my own part. Sorry.

Trent Houseboat

Following 538 as I have been(site and podcast) I was excited hear that they were adding McMullen to their model for utah. I thought it would be a real kick in the arse for the GOP if he snuck in and ate Donald's lunch, but since his addition it doesn't seem to have effected their predictions. Trump is on pretty much the same numbers (40%ish) and its Clinton who's lost ground.
With him being LDS (and Trump's beef with Romney who is Mormon royalty) and much more of a traditional conservative he seemed the perfect fit for Utah.
At least theres still arizona for the arse kick. Trump will still probably win there but the mere the fact that it's a toss up is still a shock.

People in here calling the election for Clinton already are getting ahead of themselves. It's likely(6.5% on fte) and Trump needs a knock out in the last debate(too late for a points decision, and if she can stand there and take the onslaught like she did in the second one she'll run this out) or the greatest of October surprises but it's still to play for.

Trent Houseboat

Billy86 wrote: »

I can't see that gap doing anything but continue to widen in the next three weeks to be honest. Trump's only real hope, not of winning because that is completely out the window, but of even just saving some face, is for him to have the most unlikely excellent performance since Old School and FOX to do him favour after favour in the final debate.

I disagree, the gap will probably narrow a bit. I think we're at the floor of Donald's support, brace yourself for a narrative or his resurgence(the polls will instantly become accurate then).

Zubeneschamali

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

People in here calling the election for Clinton already are getting ahead of themselves.

Paddy Power will give you 5/1 right now on Trump, 1/6 on Clinton. In a 2 horse race, that means they think it's over. If we are all wrong, you could make quite a few bob.

But we aren't wrong- the only question is the margin: worst in 20 years? 40? 100?

alastair

Billy86 wrote: »

Where do you get your news then, out of interest?

It's the best source of opinion, believe me. It's a beautiful thing. Bigly.*


*no money back if facts don't tally with this source.

TheDoctor

I still don't see where Trump gets the 270 from to be honest.

aloyisious

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

Following 538 as I have been(site and podcast) I was excited hear that they were adding McMullen to their model for utah. I thought it would be a real kick in the arse for the GOP if he snuck in and ate Donald's lunch, but since his addition it doesn't seem to have effected their predictions. Trump is on pretty much the same numbers (40%ish) and its Clinton who's lost ground.
With him being LDS (and Trump's beef with Romney who is Mormon royalty) and much more of a traditional conservative he seemed the perfect fit for Utah.
At least theres still arizona for the arse kick. Trump will still probably win there but the mere the fact that it's a toss up is still a shock.

People in here calling the election for Clinton already are getting ahead of themselves. It's likely(6.5% on fte) and Trump needs a knock out in the last debate(too late for a points decision, and if she can stand there and take the onslaught like she did in the second one she'll run this out) or the greatest of October surprises but it's still to play for.

How do you evaluate the chances John McCain's difference of opinion with Don will affect any vote Don might expect to get in Arizona?

Billy86

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Paddy Power will give you 5/1 right now on Trump, 1/6 on Clinton. In a 2 horse race, that means they think it's over. If we are all wrong, you could make quite a few bob.

But we aren't wrong- the only question is the margin: worst in 20 years? 40? 100?

32 years is the upper limit there - 1984: Reagan 525, Mondale 13.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1984

Reagan was 0.18% in Minnesota off having all the votes, pretty sure it's never happened before and doubt it ever will.

alastair

TheDoctor wrote: »

I still don't see where Trump gets the 270 from to be honest.

He doesn't. It's been over the moment the live mic thing hit the media, and tbh, it didn't look like much of a shot before that point anyway. At his best, he was just a stronger loser, and he's not really got much in the line of wares to convince the floating voter at this stage.

Zubeneschamali

TheDoctor wrote: »

I still don't see where Trump gets the 270 from to be honest.

He won't even get to 200. Nor should he - he's not a joke like the monster raving loonies, he's an actual racist misogynist narcissist. If he beats 100, America should be ashamed.

Overheal

TheDoctor wrote: »

I still don't see where Trump gets the 270 from to be honest.

He doesn't, he could win most of the swing states and still not get there.

Black Swan

Trent Houseboat wrote: »

People in here calling the election for Clinton already are getting ahead of themselves. It's likely(6.5% on fte) and Trump needs a knock out in the last debate(too late for a points decision, and if she can stand there and take the onslaught like she did in the second one she'll run this out) or the greatest of October surprises but it's still to play for.

Yes, it's still premature for the election to be called for a Clinton presidency today 3 weeks or so before 8 November 2016 (On the humourous side, SNL did a skit with Baldwin/Trump and McKinnon/Clinton impersonators yesterday, and introduced Hillary as President). There still could be an October Surprise for Clinton, but the Wikileaks almost daily trickle will not do it. Emails, emails, emails have occurred so often in the past months that methinks the voter has undergone systematic desensitisation and no longer responds to them as months before. A Clinton Surprise would have to come in a different form.

There is also the possibility of a 2nd Trump p-grab boasting October Surprise video recording to be released before 8 November 2016, which would be GAME OVER for Trump. If I were in possession of such a 2nd Trump October Surprise, I would release it a day or two before the 3rd presidential debate, just like the 1st Trump October Surprise occurred 2 days before the 2nd presidential debate. "As a producer on seasons 1 & 2 of #theapprentice I assure you: when it comes to the #trumptapes there are far worse. #justthebegininng."

Overheal

That cold open was great and I could see why Trump tossed his pot over it

Trent Houseboat

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Paddy Power will give you 5/1 right now on Trump, 1/6 on Clinton. In a 2 horse race, that means they think it's over. If we are all wrong, you could make quite a few bob.

But we aren't wrong- the only question is the margin: worst in 20 years? 40? 100?

Id say probably around 4% margin for Clinton.
No way she'll do Reagan numbers. The US is far too partisan at the moment*.

aloyisious wrote: »

How do you evaluate the chances John McCain's difference of opinion with Don will affect any vote Don might expect to get in Arizona?

I really haven't been following senate races, from what I know McCain is somewhat on an institution in AZ, and despite his hard right turn in 2008 is generally a moderate republican. I don't know if Trump can can poison him down-ballot. I remember before 2008 he was semi regular on The Daily Show where he showed himself to be an entirely reasonable person something lacking in the new wave of Tea Parties. Though I do know that AZ have that law whereby police can stop anyone they suspect iof being an illegal immigrant, which amounts to free reign on harassing Brown people, so the electorate might might see some merit in Trump's rhetoric.

*I have hope that it might get better.

Edit: sorry aloyisious, I read that as you asking me what ill effect Trump would have on McCain not the other way around. If, as I I think, McCain is well regarded in AZ then Trump's long running beef with him could only damage Trump's chances.

Black Swan

Overheal wrote: »

http://fivethirtyeight.com is worth placing your bets on. It's been frighteningly accurate the last few presidential elections.

FiveThirtyEight does have a grand record of predicting past US presidential elections. They do daily adjustments to their predictions, using 2 different models, both of which have predicted a Clinton win for several weeks now. Clinton has been in the 80 percentiles for some time, while Trump in the teens. They caution their readers, listeners, and viewers that it's still possible that Trump could win, but highly improbable this close to 8 November 2016.

Black Swan

KingBrian2 wrote: »

He is supported by the lovers of the US constitution

To what extent is Donald Trump "supported by" many who are not "lovers of the" 1st Amendment of the "US Constitution?" If elected president, Trump's plans to ban all Muslims from legally entering the United States, whether temporarily or permanently, violates today's "US Constitution" as amended.

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition. It forbids Congress from both promoting one religion over others and also restricting an individual’s religious practices.

Brian?

KingBrian2 wrote: »

You also expect a President to not be Intune with the wishes of the electorate.

This might come as a shock, but being elected is a Democratic mandate from the electorate. That's far more important than some abstract notion of being "in tune with the wishes of the electorate". Although by winning the election it would be safe for Clinton to assume she is in tune with these wishes.

Anyway, you haven't really replied to my post. Shouldn't a candidate for POTUS be au fait with the nuances of Islam?

K-9

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Doubt it will be humiliating now. I honestly hate every single candidate for different reasons, but it won't be an 11% victory for Clinton as a lot of democratic news outlet "polls" suggest. It may be somewhere between 2-5% which, for a candidate with absolutely no political background, isn't humiliating.

Polls are just snapshots of time, not predictions 3 weeks out!

I'd say it will be in or around 3 or 4% unless Trump has another meltdown in the week up to the election.

Depends if he's in the 1 step forward phase or the 2 step back one.

Quin_Dub

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Doubt it will be humiliating now. I honestly hate every single candidate for different reasons, but it won't be an 11% victory for Clinton as a lot of democratic news outlet "polls" suggest. It may be somewhere between 2-5% which, for a candidate with absolutely no political background, isn't humiliating.

K-9 wrote: »

Polls are just snapshots of time, not predictions 3 weeks out!

I'd say it will be in or around 3 or 4% unless Trump has another meltdown in the week up to the election.

Depends if he's in the 1 step forward phase or the 2 step back one.

US Politics has become heavily polarised in recent years , certainly the last 16-20 years..

Both Parties seem have have a near untouchable "Core" vote that they'll capture regardless of what name is on the ballot..

So a humiliating "blowout" in terms of the current US Election would be for Trump to significantly under perform vs that "core".


If you look at a rock Solid red state like Texas and look at where Trump is vs. Romney , McCain etc. , the GOP vote is way down.. In any previous election the GOP could run an inanimate carbon rod and still win Texas by healthy double digits..

The latest poll has Trump leading in Texas by only 4 points (The average sits at 6 , but the trend is downwards) which is a shocking indictment to how bad he is..

All the indicatations are the Trump is going to under-perform that core GOP vote across the board by quite some way , so whilst not a trouncing in the purest statistical sense , it is nonetheless heading for a pretty significant loss in the present climate..

K-9

meepins wrote: »

I don't give clicks to mainstream media outlets when it can be avoided. They have demonstrated quite successfully that they're not trustworthy. A poll done recently by the American Press institute found only 6% of Americans had a 'great deal of confidence' in the press. It's a different story altogether on here though going by the constant stream of posts I read where people just mindlessly regurgitate their propaganda without question.

Mod:

Everybody on this thread is expected to refute links with opinion as to why they disagree and/or provide links to back it up. People on both sides have been warned about just dismissing media sources they don't like.

Overheal

Sources "very close" to Ron Swanson have unearthed what the most interesting man would say of this election

https://twitter.com/Nick_Offerman/status/787024754347610112

SterlingArcher

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2016/09/26/wannabe-global-dominatrix-hillary-clinton-never-met-a-war-she-didnt-want-other-americans-to-fight/#5abae2b16aa9

Igotadose

SterlingArcher wrote: »

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dougbandow/2016/09/26/wannabe-global-dominatrix-hillary-clinton-never-met-a-war-she-didnt-want-other-americans-to-fight/#5abae2b16aa9

Possibly one of the stupidest analyses ever published. "We know what HRC will do, and it's BAD." "We have no idea what Hair Furor will do, so it must be better"

This in a so-called finance magazine. Amazing garbage like that gets printed.

Howabout "Hair Furor is an unhinged horndog with a lifelong record of failing, who belittles the military, cheats veterans, ducked his war service and advocates attacking ISIS. He'd definitely be less of a threat to launch military strikes than HRC." If the article'd been written that way, the writer'd be laughed out of the room.

Amazing. The most public candidate vs. a secretive Russian tool (remember campaign manager #2?) with mysterious finances, and the latter'd be less likely to make war.

*facepalm*

Trent Houseboat

Trent Houseboat wrote:

Following 538 as I have been(site and podcast) I was excited hear that they were adding McMullen to their model for utah. I thought it would be a real kick in the arse for the GOP if he snuck in and ate Donald's lunch, but since his addition it doesn't seem to have effected their predictions. Trump is on pretty much the same numbers (40%ish) and its Clinton who's lost ground.
With him being LDS (and Trump's beef with Romney who is Mormon royalty) and much more of a traditional conservative he seemed the perfect fit for Utah.

Looks like I was getting ahead of myself.

http://heatst.com/world/exclusive-evan-mcmullin-utah-poll-independent-conservative-ties-trump/
Trump, McMullen and Clinton all within a point of each other in the most recent Rassumssen poll in Utah.

Overheal

I question whether 538 will call Utah. they probably won't have an accurate projection until early November.

edit: since the weekend their projection has narrowed further:

Clinton win chance (polls/polls+historical) 87.7%/84.8%
Trump 12.3%/15.2%

Even with the recent Rasmussen poll which they score fairly low, McMullin doesn't stand much of a shot yet. But hoping he gets good publicity from it.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/utah/#now

TheDoctor

McMullin for Utah 2016!

Trent Houseboat

It certainly would be two fingers to the system. A republican running as an independent because the party nominated an independent running as a republican.

ebbsy

Has today's outrage of the day from the Donald surfaced yet ?

TheDoctor

Not yet, he must be doing debate prep or something.

Overheal

The FBI/NSA watchlist keeps growing

http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-supporter-tells-reporters-hillary-needs-to-be-taken-out/

“I feel like Hillary needs to be taken out,” said a rally-goer named Dan Bowman. “If she gets in the government, I’ll do everything in my power to take her out of power. If I have to be a patriot, I will.”

“What does that mean?” WSJ asked.

“Take it any way you want to take it,” Bowman responded enigmatically.

“That sounds like a threat,” they pointed out.

“I’m a patriot,” he responded.

“Is that a physical threat?” WSJ pressed.

“I don’t know. Is it?” he deflected.

The Boston Globe‘s Matt Viser also encountered Bowman, and reported on even more troubling comments.“If she’s in office, I hope we can start a coup. She should be in prison or shot. That’s how I feel about it…” he said. “We’re going to have a revolution and take them out of office if that’s what it takes. There’s going to be a lot of bloodshed.”