2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Akrasia

TheDoctor wrote: »

On the flip side a "normal" Republican candidate should have Hillary in trouble in 2020.

Yeah, if they can arrange one. But with all the twists and turns over the last 12 months, a brave person will predict the election in 2020

Black Swan

FiveThirtyEight's "polls only" model forecast made 30 minutes ago shows Clinton with 86.7% to win, and Trump 13.3% for 8 November 2016. Their "polls plus" model forecast shows Clinton 84.1% and Trump 15.9%. And lastly, their "now cast" model (if election held today) shows Clinton 86.9% and Trump 13.1%. So it will be interesting to see how close FiveThirtyEight's forecasts have been on 9 November 2016, or if all 3 of their models were spurious.

Rjd2

Akrasia wrote: »

Yeah, if they can arrange one. But with all the twists and turns over the last 12 months, a brave person will predict the election in 2020

Its tricky to know what we will get, some are suggesting a similar sort of person, but with no skeletons and obviously not as extreme, although its hard to see who could be that person in the party. Ryan would like a less polarising figure, but Trump now has an army of loyalists, will they accept such a nomination like a Kasich etc?

Christy42

Rjd2 wrote: »

Its tricky to know what we will get, some are suggesting a similar sort of person, but with no skeletons and obviously not as extreme, although its hard to see who could be that person in the party. Ryan would like a less polarising figure, but Trump now has an army of loyalists, will they accept such a nomination like a Kasich etc?

Whoever they elect with the possible of Romney will have the black mark of having endorsed Trump at one point.

PopePalpatine

I wonder if they would try to get Evan McMullin on board for 2020.

Rjd2

Christy42 wrote: »

Whoever they elect with the possible of Romney will have the black mark of having endorsed Trump at one point.

That's what makes Cruz's endorsement of him so hilarious and stupid a few weeks ago, he had the moral high ground when he burned him at the RNC and then he blew it with his endorsement. That is something he won't live down.

I know Pence was talked about as a possible president nomination, but like Cruz, the stench of Trump will be hard to get rid off next time around.

Heck even Ryan who changes his mind on Trump all the time, won't come out of this campaign smelling of roses.

Trent Houseboat

Black Swan wrote: »

FiveThirtyEight's "polls only" model forecast made 30 minutes ago shows Clinton with 86.7% to win, and Trump 13.3% for 8 November 2016. Their "polls plus" model forecast shows Clinton 84.1% and Trump 15.9%. And lastly, their "now cast" model (if election held today) shows Clinton 86.9% and Trump 13.1%. So it will be interesting to see how close FiveThirtyEight's forecasts have been on 9 November 2016, or if all 3 of their models were spurious.

They are quite admittedly behind. Their analysis is based on other people's polls. Data for those polls are only being collected from today, 538 will not see movement based on the debate until the weekend at the soonest.

Zubeneschamali

Akrasia wrote: »

Yeah, if they can arrange one.

I'm 52. I'm starting to think I may not live to see another Republican president.

Difficult though it is to believe now, Trump won the debates for the Republican nomination. He soundly beat 16 other candidates.

And as we have seen, he is absolutely and utterly useless at debates. Hillary humiliated him 3-0. How good is the pool of talent the Rs have, if Trump, utterly incompetent, is the best they had?

OK, Paul Ryan could get the nomination, but the election? He had more sense than to try this time - next time will be harder.

captbarnacles

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

But if you look at all the things that have been proving against her then you would assume this person would have offshore accounts. I mean she things she is smarter than everyone else so she would have them, most likely..
It would be something she would do '' here are my tax returns''
''haha Americans are so stupid, I have 200 million in Saudi Account ''

This again. OK I'll bite.

What has been proven against her?

Zubeneschamali

captbarnacles wrote: »

OK I'll bite.

Why? This one is all over bar the voting.

BorneTobyWilde

captbarnacles wrote: »

This again. OK I'll bite.

What has been proven against her?

Do you live under a rock.
She lied counting times in her Benghazi hearing and her email hearing, all proven . The FBI investigation showed she lied over and over about details surrounding her emails and private server .

''I never sent or received classified information ''

FBI: She did

'' there was nothing even marked classified on my emails sent or received''

FBI: Multiple items marked classified

'' i only used one device, just one ''

FBI: Multiple devices used

'' all work related emails were returned to the state department ''

FBI: False ,thousands of emails not returned

'' my lawyers read all emails''

FBI: No . they did not read all

Hilary '' i have a private face and a public face''

The public face is for you , enjoy it .

CMOTDibbler

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Do you live under a rock.
She lied counting times in her Benghazi hearing and her email hearing, all proven . The FBI investigation showed she lied over and over about details surrounding her emails and private server .

''I never sent or received classified information ''

FBI: She did

'' there was nothing even marked classified on my emails sent or received''

FBI: Multiple items marked classified

'' i only used one device, just one ''

FBI: Multiple devices used

'' all work related emails were returned to the state department ''

FBI: False ,thousands of emails not returned

'' my lawyers read all emails''

FBI: No . they did not read all

Hilary '' i have a private face and a public face''

The public face is for you , enjoy it .

I know you think that's a clever way to present your 'evidence', but it just isn't.

You are a random poster on a bulletin board typing stuff. It means diddly squat.

When asked to back something up, you are actually supposed to provide reputable sources. Not write a script for a straight to DVD movie.

Timberrrrrrrr

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

I think wrong, so the person with 13 phones, the person who lies under oath to the American people, the person who after receiving a subpoena still goes ahead and deletes as many emails as humanly possible before she hands over rest.
Yep she has no offshore account with millions hidden away for all her favours to countries who treat women like animals, she would not do such a thing.
I can imagine she has 13 names too to go with her 13 phones.

One shred of evidence for this fantasy of yours, go on....just one tiny shred of evidence to prove you are not making up these idiotic claims.

aloyisious

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Do you live under a rock.
She lied counting times in her Benghazi hearing and her email hearing, all proven . The FBI investigation showed she lied over and over about details surrounding her emails and private server .

''I never sent or received classified information ''

FBI: She did

'' there was nothing even marked classified on my emails sent or received''

FBI: Multiple items marked classified

'' i only used one device, just one ''

FBI: Multiple devices used

'' all work related emails were returned to the state department ''

FBI: False ,thousands of emails not returned

'' my lawyers read all emails''

FBI: No . they did not read all

Hilary '' i have a private face and a public face''

The public face is for you , enjoy it .

Would these include any of the 33,000 Don keeps talking about?

Is there any reason why a Republican-dominated senate can't, now or in the future, subpoena the FBI records on what emails were seen during the investigation to allow for an impeachment trial of Hillary Edit..... that is supposing the FBI managed somehow to see the 33,000 emails, seeing as how they were deleted, done away with?

Overheal

Trumps national political director jumped ship

http://www.mediaite.com/online/trump-national-political-director-is-stepping-back-from-campaign-citing-personal-reasons/

Zubeneschamali

Overheal wrote: »

Trumps national political director jumped ship

Let's not forget that Trump beat 16 Republicans to win the nomination. This complete meltdown is their best shot. There is a very good chance that their 2020 candidate will be one of the losers.

But hey: Some Republican but not a racist misogynist billionaire arsehole 2024!

learn_more

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Let's not forget that Trump beat 16 Republicans to win the nomination. This complete meltdown is their best shot. There is a very good chance that their 2020 candidate will be one of the losers.

But hey: Some Republican but not a racist misogynist billionaire arsehole 2024!

I think in the context of being beaten by trump, most of them haven't a hope, especially Jeb Bush Ben Carson, Chris Christie and the awful Ted Cruz. Rubio possibly but I think he should leave it for another 8 years.

Zubeneschamali

learn_more wrote: »

I think in the context of being beaten by trump, most of them haven't a hope, especially Jeb Bush Ben Carson, Chris Christie and the awful Ted Cruz. Rubio possibly but I think he should leave it for another 8 years.

Hillary will be running as incumbent. If all 16 of this years crop are out, what have the R's got?

Do not say Paul Ryan - he knows better himself.

BorneTobyWilde

If McMullin wins Utah then it's possible in theory that neither Hilary or Trumps gets to 270.
What happens at that point if that were to happen.

johnp001

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

I know you think that's a clever way to present your 'evidence', but it just isn't.

You are a random poster on a bulletin board typing stuff. It means diddly squat.

When asked to back something up, you are actually supposed to provide reputable sources. Not write a script for a straight to DVD movie.

Most of the statements in post #4562 above are covered in the first couple of minutes of Trey Gowdy's questioning here:

johnp001

aloyisious wrote: »

Would these include any of the 33,000 Don keeps talking about?

Is there any reason why a Republican-dominated senate can't, now or in the future, subpoena the FBI records on what emails were seen during the investigation to allow for an impeachment trial of Hillary?

The House committee issued a subpoena to the FBI for the email investigation last month as they continued to withhold the information despite admitting that there was no legal or constitutional basis for doing so. The FBI had to be subpoenaed to even testify to the committee having apparently not shown up before the House for a previous hearing.
You can watch it here:

learn_more

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Hillary will be running as incumbent. If all 16 of this years crop are out, what have the R's got?

Do not say Paul Ryan - he knows better himself.

They don't have anybody. That's the point. They better find somebody and fast.

I think Paul Rayn has a really poor public image. He just looks and acts like a baddie.

Alaskan candidates are out. If they don't have anyone then they don't have anyone. The Dem's are prolly looking now for their next president after Clinton : )

Igotadose

learn_more wrote: »

They don't have anybody. That's the point. They better find somebody and fast.

I think Paul Rayn has a really poor public image. He just looks and acts like a baddie.

Alaskan candidates are out. If they don't have anyone then they don't have anyone. The Dem's are prolly looking now for their next president after Clinton : )

Economist ran a profile of Tom Cotton, Senator from Arkansas, visiting Iowa a week or two ago. Classic GOP bona fides - anti-choice, Iraq vet, budget hawk. Much slicker than the usual nimrod, though hasn't really gone through the media furnace yet. Showing up and meeting with the Iowan movers and shakers looks like he's interested in running.

Ludo

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

If McMullin wins Utah then it's possible in theory that neither Hilary or Trumps gets to 270.
What happens at that point if that were to happen.

This is what happens: http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Oct20.html#item-5

Basically, House Of Reps elects the President and Senate elects the VP.

Christy42

learn_more wrote: »

They don't have anybody. That's the point. They better find somebody and fast.

I think Paul Rayn has a really poor public image. He just looks and acts like a baddie.

Alaskan candidates are out. If they don't have anyone then they don't have anyone. The Dem's are prolly looking now for their next president after Clinton : )

Another point is that they don't just have to find them. The have to nominate them as well. Most of the grassroots still support Trump and so will nominate another just like him. They are stuck. Until something changes they only seem set to nominate entirely unelectable people like Trump.

Quin_Dub

Christy42 wrote: »

Another point is that they don't just have to find them. The have to nominate them as well. Most of the grassroots still support Trump and so will nominate another just like him. They are stuck. Until something changes they only seem set to nominate entirely unelectable people like Trump.

This is the key problem for the GOP.

Not unlike UK Labour with Momentum , the party core has been taken over by a group that are utterly unacceptable to a majority of the general public.

Within the echo chamber of the party , they believe they are popular and have a mandate etc. etc. but the reality is that on the National stage they are entirely unelectable.

Truthfully , the only hope for the GOP is that Trump starts his own party in a huff after the election

That way he'll take the lunatic fringe with him and allow the GOP to rebuild as something more palatable..

Sofa Spud

Quin_Dub wrote: »

This is the key problem for the GOP.

Not unlike UK Labour with Momentum , the party core has been taken over by a group that are utterly unacceptable to a majority of the general public.

Within the echo chamber of the party , they believe they are popular and have a mandate etc. etc. but the reality is that on the National stage they are entirely unelectable.

Truthfully , the only hope for the GOP is that Trump starts his own party in a huff after the election

That way he'll take the lunatic fringe with him and allow the GOP to rebuild as something more palatable..

That could very well happen - the only issue is that a fringe party will leak votes from the GOP, and if they were to put up congressional candidates too, that would ensure the Dems have a hold on power for a number of election cycles....

Quin_Dub

Sofa Spud wrote: »

That could very well happen - the only issue is that a fringe party will leak votes from the GOP, and if they were to put up congressional candidates too, that would ensure the Dems have a hold on power for a number of election cycles....

Agree - It wouldn't be a short term fix for the GOP.

Any Presidential recovery for the GOP is at least 2 cycles away..

johnp001

This year's primaries show there is a huge appetite for an anti-establishment, outsider candidate. Neither Sanders or Trump were considered likely to be serious contenders at the start of the primary campaign.
If the Republican party had recognised this earlier and got behind a candidate like Rand Paul who has excellent anti-establishment credentials while being a staunch fiscal conservative then the situation now could be very different. Paul has political experience, very consistent positions and is an excellent speaker who would have mopped the floor with Clinton at the debates.

Quin_Dub

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Agree - It wouldn't be a short term fix for the GOP.

Any Presidential recovery for the GOP is at least 2 cycles away..

Superficially it looks like that. 4 years of nothing whatsoever getting done and the Dems could go way down.

Quin_Dub

Deleted User wrote: »

Superficially it looks like that. 4 years of nothing whatsoever getting done and the Dems could go way down.

A lot depends now on the Senate race..

If the Dems can get control (either by holding more seats or by getting to parity and using the VP casting vote) that should allow them to actually get stuff done.

I was bit saddened to hear John McCain say the other day that the GOP would block any SCOTUS pick from Clinton..

Not that they block any they found unacceptable, which would be ok but a flat "we'll block everybody" even if they are good.

If the GOP continue with this "block everything, just because the Democrats suggested it" approach I can't see how that enables them to expand their base in the mid-terms or the next Presidential election.

Sofa Spud

Quin_Dub wrote: »

A lot depends now on the Senate race..

If the Dems can get control (either by holding more seats or by getting to parity and using the VP casting vote) that should allow them to actually get stuff done.

I was bit saddened to hear John McCain say the other day that the GOP would block any SCOTUS pick from Clinton..

Not that they block any they found unacceptable, which would be ok but a flat "we'll block everybody" even if they are good.

If the GOP continue with this "block everything, just because the Democrats suggested it" approach I can't see how that enables them to expand their base in the mid-terms or the next Presidential election.

Yeah, but in a body politic where he who shouts loudest gets the press, the whole point about blocking legislation or preventing cross aisle cooperation is seen as a strength and playing directly to their base.
If they try to expand their base by showing any hint of moderation or even the slightest hint of even respecting the opposition, they risk everything.
Look what happen to Eric Cantor - House Majority Leader, show a little softening in his hard core conservative stance and he lost his primary - snuffed out by his own party.

The fact that it's Hillary, probably not an exaggeration to say as hated, if not more, than Obama, means that if anyone from the GOP stands up when she enters the congress for the State of the Union, they will have to watch their backs. There's a possibility for the Dems to win the Senate, but without the House too, nothing of any substance will happen in the next 4 years.

TheDoctor

If Hillary wins, the Dems need the senate for anything to happen in the next few years.

CMOTDibbler

Sofa Spud wrote: »

The fact that it's Hillary, probably not an exaggeration to say as hated, if not more, than Obama, means that if anyone from the GOP stands up when she enters the congress for the State of the Union, they will have to watch their backs. There's a possibility for the Dems to win the Senate, but without the House too, nothing of any substance will happen in the next 4 years.

The Democrats may make some gains in the house in this cycle. Not enough to change the balance of power, but they could get a good bit closer.

aloyisious

Just saying, is all...... Hillary will have broken two barriers, Ist Democratic Presidential nominee to succeed a sitting Democrat in 160 years AND the 1st female US President (partially presented to her by the Republican party nominee, that party's choice in chosen one).

The last time voters elected a Democrat to the White House after a president from the same party had just served a full term was in 1856, before the Civil War. Last Democrat elected to Succeed a Democrat (aside from the third timer Franklin D Roosevelt succeeding himself so doesn't really count) President was James Buchanan, the 15th president and the only one ever to come from Pennsylvania. Buchanan succeeded President Franklin Pierce.

It's possible that Don's acts, and his denials, will propel Democrat voters out in numbers from voter apathy in order simply to show their anger and disgust and stick it to the Republican party, via it's Representatives and Senators but I wouldn't count my chickens before they're hatched just because it's what one wished for.

Pro Hoc Vice

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Yeah, but in a body politic where he who shouts loudest gets the press, the whole point about blocking legislation or preventing cross aisle cooperation is seen as a strength and playing directly to their base.
If they try to expand their base by showing any hint of moderation or even the slightest hint of even respecting the opposition, they risk everything.
Look what happen to Eric Cantor - House Majority Leader, show a little softening in his hard core conservative stance and he lost his primary - snuffed out by his own party.

The fact that it's Hillary, probably not an exaggeration to say as hated, if not more, than Obama, means that if anyone from the GOP stands up when she enters the congress for the State of the Union, they will have to watch their backs. There's a possibility for the Dems to win the Senate, but without the House too, nothing of any substance will happen in the next 4 years.

Why not for 4 years. 1/3 of senate are up for reelection in 2 years, plus if I'm not mistaken the House is also up for election in 2018.

Is there many examples of members not standing for the President at the state of the union.

Skylinehead

aloyisious wrote: »

Just saying, is all...... Hillary will have broken two barriers, Ist Democratic Presidential nominee to succeed a sitting Democrat in 160 years AND the 1st female US President (partially presented to her by the Republican party nominee, that party's choice in chosen one).

The last time voters elected a Democrat to the White House after a president from the same party had just served a full term was in 1856, before the Civil War. Last Democrat elected to Succeed a Democrat (aside from the third timer Franklin D Roosevelt succeeding himself so doesn't really count) President was James Buchanan, the 15th president and the only one ever to come from Pennsylvania. Buchanan succeeded President Franklin Pierce.

Why does everyone forget about Harry Truman when citing this "fact"?

Sofa Spud

aloyisious wrote: »

Just saying, is all...... Hillary will have broken two barriers, Ist Democratic Presidential nominee to succeed a sitting Democrat in 160 years AND the 1st female US President (partially presented to her by the Republican party nominee, that party's choice in chosen one).

The last time voters elected a Democrat to the White House after a president from the same party had just served a full term was in 1856, before the Civil War. Last Democrat elected to Succeed a Democrat (aside from the third timer Franklin D Roosevelt succeeding himself so doesn't really count) President was James Buchanan, the 15th president and the only one ever to come from Pennsylvania. Buchanan succeeded President Franklin Pierce.

It's possible that Don's acts, and his denials, will propel Democrat voters out in numbers from voter apathy in order simply to show their anger and disgust and stick it to the Republican party, via it's Representatives and Senators but I wouldn't count my chickens before they're hatched just because it's what one wished for.

What about Truman succeeding FDR - had almost a full term having stepped up from VP when FDR died and then won re-election?

PopePalpatine

Sofa Spud wrote: »

What about Truman succeeding FDR - had almost a full term having stepped up from VP when FDR died and then won re-election?

I think it'd be the same reason LBJ was ignored in that statistic.

Sofa Spud

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

Why not for 4 years. 1/3 of senate are up for reelection in 2 years, plus if I'm not mistaken the House is also up for election in 2018.

Is there many examples of members not standing for the President at the state of the union.

Yep, fair point, and the entire house is up for re-election every 2 years, which is a bit nonsensical as it means as soon as they're sworn in they have to start fund-raising for the next round.

Quip about standing for the pres at the state of the union is just that, a quip - I think it's very rare, if ever, for anyone not to stand when they enter the chambre, but common not to give a standing ovation during the speech, or even shout abuse, as happened for Obama when he was talking about the affordable health act. My point is that anyone within the GOP that shows any hint of cooperation with Hillary will be slated, and quickly. They seem to forget that St. Reagan would have got nothing done were it not for Tip O'Neil's willingness to do business with him....

Sam Russell

aloyisious wrote: »

Just saying, is all...... Hillary will have broken two barriers, Ist Democratic Presidential nominee to succeed a sitting Democrat in 160 years AND the 1st female US President (partially presented to her by the Republican party nominee, that party's choice in chosen one).

She will, if elected, be the first president for a long time to be less than 6 ft tall. Edit: GW Bush was 5 ft 11.5 inches (but you get the point).

Brian?

Sam Russell wrote: »

She will, if elected, be the first president for a long time to be less than 6 ft tall.

GW Bush was over 6ft? He always looked like a wee fella on television.

aloyisious

johnp001 wrote: »

Most of the statements in post #4562 above are covered in the first couple of minutes of Trey Gowdy's questioning here:

I noticed that in his replies, the witness did not include the word "classified" when talking about emails (and presumably information, as that's the word used by the questioner) sent or received from the Clinton devices. He also didn't say Hillary was using the devices at the times when emails were sent or received. I'd have included that as a question in any questions I asked. It might seem like I'm quibbling about evidential matters but that's enough of a loophole to get off on, the questioner apparently making an assumption Hillary was the only one using the devices (plural) used in connection with the emails. BorneTobyWilde mentioned 13 phones. Smartphone are usable for sending emails. The Former director also did not use the word "emails" immediately before or after the word classified. with the 1st question, the answer he was giving was interrupted by the questioner, so he didn't confirm or deny Hillary sent anything CLASSIFIED. The same applied throughout the other questions. He did not confirm Hillary was responsible for any deletions, deliberate or accidental. He also introduced an angle of accidental deletion when devices were being removed.

Re putting on the old hat, that was asking the former FBI man to make circumstantial deductions right in front of the committee, not asking him for any notes he made during the investigation to prove a deduction trail.

I did like the way the questioner changed what he called the emails, private to public, late in his questioning.

Amerika

Yesterday was the annual The Al Smith Dinner, and very four years has become a tradition for the two presidential candidates to light-heartedly roast each other. It’s a white-tie fundraiser for Catholic charities supporting needy children which is held at the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, and hosted by the archbishop of New York. This year sure didn’t disappoint.

dwayneshintzy

Wasn't very light-hearted, and Trump certainly didn't come across well....

BorneTobyWilde

I thought what Trump did to Hilary was a bit much.
Trump started well but it got very political very fast and he over did it. It was a night to leave serious issues alone and to be light hearted in his comical speech. The whole room was put in an awkward situation, laugh , don't laugh.

BorneTobyWilde

It was hard to concentrate on either speech due to the lady in red, her big pair of ample luscious well proportioned ear rings where distracting.

CMOTDibbler

Neither of them were particularly funny tbh. Donald started out well, but got too political and Hillary, well funny and Hillary don't really go together.

At least those present got a nice meal to help digest it.

aloyisious

Nearly spewed coffee on screen when Don said, "that was good" after he patted Hillary twice while passing her, and the Cardinal looking on. There were some biting comments from both sides, as the audience reaction showed. The Rudy gag was good.

aloyisious

Skylinehead wrote: »

Why does everyone forget about Harry Truman when citing this "fact"?

Fair point made by you and sofa spud. I should have used the word elected as needed between "sitting and Democrat" in my Ist Democratic Presidential nominee to succeed a sitting Democrat quote as Barak is in his second directly-elected-to-job term. Harry, as V/P, took over the presidency in line with constitutional rules when FDR died in office. Harry was NOT elected to his first term as president.