US Election: 2016

[Lightguns]

weird. I thought this was American politics.

Quite right, I should have picked an American example

Sent from my XT1563 using Tapatalk

 

[cupper]

Not sure who you're responding to, since the quote isn't linked...  ;D
.....but that  seems to be a common denominator in these politics "discussions."  Sometimes even the Recruiting threads seem more rationally developed. 

That's because the people posting in the recruiting threads haven't lived long enough to become as jaded as those of us posting here. [

 

[muskrat89]

That's because the people posting in the recruiting threads haven't lived long enough to become as jaded as those of us posting here

Now THAT is funny! 

 

[muskrat89]

and the state level polls which show that he is losing ground across the board. State level polling tends to give results closer to the final vote than do national poles in the past few election cycles.

Not in Arizona at least. There's a state level poll showing he's +5. Again, it may be the exception but certainly not every state has Hillary ahead.

http://www.azfamily.com/story/32833816/cnn-poll-trump-tops-clinton-in-arizona?autostart=true

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are neck and neck in North Carolina, a state solidifying its position as a perennial presidential election battleground, while Trump holds a 5-point lead in the traditionally GOP-tilting state of Arizona, according to new CNN/ORC battleground state polls.

Trump is the choice of 43% of registered voters in Arizona, while Clinton stands at 38%, followed by Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson at 12% and Green Party nominee Jill Stein at 4%. In North Carolina, Clinton stands at 44%, Trump at 43% and Johnson at 11%. Stein will not appear on the ballot there.

Looking at the narrower pool of those likely to turn out in November, the race doesn't change significantly in either state. Trump's lead in Arizona widens slightly to 7 points, while the 1-point difference between the two candidates in North Carolina shifts to a tied race. Likely voters become a more meaningful subgroup as the election gets closer and voters settle on whether they will turn out and whom they will support.

 

[ModlrMike]

Why does this campaign remind me of:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v7XXSt9XRM

 

[Brad Sallows]

There's no conspiracy to "get" the Clintons.  The simple explanation is the correct one: they behave corruptly and with impropriety.  For all the people who fret that the Clintons are somehow held unfairly under a microscope, the truth is that it would be more worrisome if they attracted no investigations.  Eventually, too much good fortune is unlikely to be mere perspicacity and luck.

Trump will most likely lose the EC.  The Democratic party doesn't really seem to have a principled element the same way the Republican party does (the Trump detractors, who are numerous).

 

[cupper]

Seems Trump will have his own cows coming home to roost if he doesn't deliver on his promises with respect to immigration.

And I know this is the extreme end of the fringe, but it only takes one to act on the idea.

Glenn Beck Caller Has Chilling Message For Trump If He Doesn’t Build The Wall

http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/2016/08/24/glenn-beck-caller-chilling-message-trump-doesnt-build-wall/

When your bread-and-butter is stirring up the worst in people, you need to be really cautious about crossing your base.

This election has brought out some ugly, scary characters. On both sides. Trump, however, has plumbed the depths of living hell with his rhetoric and it may come back to bite him.

On Wednesday, one of those who have responded to Trump’s constant dog whistling and the demonization of “other” called in to Glenn Beck’s radio program, with a troubling message for his hay-haired idol.

The radio call turned “spooky” after “Nate” from Virginia was asked to explain how he can trust Trump to keep his promises when he’s already changing some of his policy positions.

“As long as he does the basic things, the foundational things, which is build a wall, he’s not going to have people like me coming after him,” Nate responded.

“So if he doesn’t build a wall like China, then he’s in trouble?” Beck said.

“Oh, he’s in so much trouble,” the caller quickly shot back. “You don’t even understand the backlash of us, the ones who are so frustrated and angry and tired of all the political stuff. We’re going to come after him personally. You know what I mean? We’re going to get him.”

“Get him” could mean a lot of things. A public properly motivated could petition their government to proceed with impeachment of a president who has somehow neglected to properly conduct the duties of his office.

It could mean those who voted for him in his first term would not be there to support him in a bid for a second term.

Or it could mean something more base and violent. Beck pressed “Nate” on what he meant by “get him,” hoping he meant something more legal.

“Well, I mean, hey, you yourself said he’s condoned violence in the past, hasn’t he?” the caller replied.

The caller went on to issue a chilling warning to Trump about keeping his campaign promises:

“I’m just saying, he’s appealing to people who are very frustrated and angry. Their frustration and anger can only be subsided if he makes his promises true,” Nate said. “And he has a lot on his shoulders. Maybe he himself doesn’t even know how much. But if he doesn’t come through for us, he’s going to have bigger problems, bigger problems than what you know.”

Beck described the call as “one of the spookiest” phone calls he’s ever received.

For as much as I despise Trump and what he’s done to this election, the party, and ultimately, our nation, I would not see him or anyone in his circle harmed.

There are risks that come with the very public nature of politics, so I pray Trump keeps one eye open, at all times.

You can hear the call here:

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2016/08/24/trump-supporter-issues-threatening-message-to-gop-nominee-live-on-the-air/

 

[FJAG]

There's no conspiracy to "get" the Clintons.  The simple explanation is the correct one: they behave corruptly and with impropriety.  For all the people who fret that the Clintons are somehow held unfairly under a microscope, the truth is that it would be more worrisome if they attracted no investigations.  Eventually, too much good fortune is unlikely to be mere perspicacity and luck.

Trump will most likely lose the EC.  The Democratic party doesn't really seem to have a principled element the same way the Republican party does (the Trump detractors, who are numerous).

:rofl:

I'm sorry. I just had to come back. I couldn't help myself.

:cheers:

 

[Brad Sallows]

I've read plenty of commentary from Republicans, and conservatives in general, explaining their reasons for refusing to support Trump, and their refusals to be swayed by mere practical issues such as a shift in balance on the USSC.  Hence, principled.  There isn't a matching - at least not within a couple of orders of magnitude - contingent of Democrats explaining why they won't support Clinton.

 

[Lumber]

I've read plenty of commentary from Republicans, and conservatives in general, explaining their reasons for refusing to support Trump, and their refusals to be swayed by mere practical issues such as a shift in balance on the USSC.  Hence, principled.  There isn't a matching - at least not within a couple of orders of magnitude - contingent of Democrats explaining why they won't support Clinton.

This is simple to explain.

The democrats smell victory, and they all want a spot on the coat tails so they get a chance to suck on the presidential teet (not literally...although...). Ergo, they are not rocking the boat.

On the other hand, the Republicans smell defeat, and therefore, with nothing to lose, they are speaking there minds, and causing a ruckus. They aren't afraid of pissing off the executive branch that wasn't.

There are no principled politicians.

:2c:

 

[Lightguns]

In democratic politics, principles will kill your campaign every time.  The drones may whine about dirty politics but they all tune in to cheer their team for the fight. 

 

[CougarKing]

Hmm. The headline apparently said "Trump gaining on Clinton" on the MSN newsfeed, but this was the headline below at the source article.

Reuters

Clinton leads Trump by 5 points in Reuters/Ipsos poll
Reuters

By Chris Kahn
46 mins ago

U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton leads her Republican rival Donald Trump by 5 percentage points among likely voters, down from a peak this month of 12 points, according to the Reuters/Ipsos daily tracking poll released on Friday.

The Aug. 22-25 opinion poll found that 41 percent of likely voters supported Clinton ahead of the Nov. 8 presidential election, while 36 percent supported Trump. Some 23 percent would not pick either candidate and answered "refused," "other" or "wouldn't vote."

Clinton, a former secretary of state, has led real estate developer Trump in the poll since Democrats and Republicans ended their national conventions and formally nominated their presidential candidates in July. Her level of support has varied between 41 and 45 percent during that period, and her lead over Trump in the tracking poll peaked this month at 12 percentage points on Tuesday.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[tomahawk6]

In this wikileaks release Hillary takes credit for the fall of Qaddafi.It could make a powerful Trump ad.

https://www.scribd.com/document/322287777/Libya-Tick-Tock#from_embed

 

[a_majoor]

How progressives have changed. This goes a long way to explain why millennial were so supportive of Obama, Sanders and now the hope is they transfer their allegiance to Clinton:

 

[tomahawk6]

When I read the word progressive I think socialist.I dont know why they want to camoflage who they are.Socialists in Europe dont mind the term so why not the US version ?

 

[a_majoor]

Dissecting Hillary Clinton's speech:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQtCiW5hTes

 

[CougarKing]

Trump already alienated the overwhelmingly Catholic, Hispanic American vote with his views on immigration, and add this to his wanting to ban immigration from countries like the Philippines, also a predominantly Catholic country.

Washington Post

Analysis: Donald Trump has a massive Catholic problem

The Washington Post
Aaron Blake


Much has been made of Donald Trump’s problems with a few voting groups — female voters, blacks and Hispanics, and young voters, in particular. And, to be sure, they are all problems.

But relatively speaking, his biggest problem actually appears to be with a different group: Catholics.

Yes, the man who once feuded with the pope (how soon we forget that actually happened) is cratering among Catholics.

(...SNIPPED)
But Trump trails among Catholics by a huge margin. A new poll from the Public Religion Research Institute released this week shows him down 23 points, 55-32.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll released earlier this month painted an even worse picture for Trump’s Catholic support. He was down by 27 points, 61-34.

If you compare the difference between Romney’s margin among Catholics in 2012 and Trump’s margin among Catholics this year, the 25-point difference is tied for the biggest shift of any demographic group in the Post-ABC poll.

(The only group that matches that 25-point shift is white, college-educated women. Romney won them by 6 points; Trump trails by 19.)

Trump’s deficits among non-whites and young voters, by contrast, are similar to where Romney and Republicans have been in recent years. The Post-ABC poll, in fact, showed Hillary Clinton failing to match Obama’s margin among non-whites — though not in a statistically meaningful way — while her margin among young voters ages 18-to-29 was three points better.

These are groups, in other words, that Republicans don’t expect to do well with. And they still don’t.

But Catholics have long been a swing vote in presidential elections, and right now they’re swinging hard for Clinton.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

How progressives have changed. This goes a long way to explain why millennial were so supportive of Obama, Sanders and now the hope is they transfer their allegiance to Clinton:

Since we are just using stereotypes here's one:

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Since we are just using stereotypes here's one:

It is the Democrats that were pro slavery, KKK, Jim Crowe, etc.

 

[Lightguns]

It is the Democrats that were pro slavery, KKK, Jim Crowe, etc.

Correct, it is amazing how few Americans understand their political history.  Johnson reformed the Democrat stance in the 60s by embracing Civil Rights but even he said it was just to get their vote and nothing to do with his personal stance. US political history is full of two faced people.  Lincoln did believe in slavery but also felt Blacks should not be an equal component of society.  Maggie Sanger believed planned parenting raised better kids but felt that the best planning for Black families was little to no children as they were a burden on American society.  The Clintons embraced the KKK moderates for years to get the vote and run Arkansas with a iron fist.  The heyday of Black culture in the US was during the soft segregation of the 30s, 40s and 50s in the Southwest and Northeast.  Black communities had their own Hollywood, their own economic system, their own sports and they thrived independent of white political machinations.  The Hard segregation of the South was a different thing however.