2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

ancapailldorcha · 25-09-2016 06:36PM

oik wrote: »

Take a step back and think about what you've managed to prove here. With all your effort.

Either post constructively or not at all.

oik · 25-09-2016 06:50PM

Okay, let me try again. You're being overly pedantic and not really proving anything of worth. Yeah, Trump mentions polls a lot. That doesn't mean that his campaign team (or Clinton's) is concerned about their standing in national polls. National polls don't matter. Would you like me to revisit the football analogy? Possession doesn't win games, goals do.

K-9 · 25-09-2016 06:56PM

National polls do matter as a guage of how well a candidate is doing, momentum in the campaign, stuff like that.

Electorally though, it comes down to 6 or 7 states or whatever the number of swing states are.

Calina · 25-09-2016 06:56PM

oik wrote: »

Okay, let me try again. You're being overly pedantic and not really proving anything of worth. Yeah, Trump mentions polls a lot. That doesn't mean that his campaign team (or Clinton's) is concerned about their standing in national polls. National polls don't matter. Would you like me to revisit the football analogy? Possession doesn't win games, goals do.

Goals don't happen without possession for the most part apart from the odd own goal. Check with the Mayo football team. They're familiar with this.

In the meantime, Trump seems to spend a lot of time focusing on stuff which apparently doesn't matter to his backroom team. This is not a good optic. If he doesn't care about national polls he shouldn't be talking about them.

oik · 25-09-2016 07:04PM

Goals don't happen without possession for the most part apart from the odd own goal. Check with the Mayo football team. They're familiar with this.

In the meantime, Trump seems to spend a lot of time focusing on stuff which apparently doesn't matter to his backroom team. This is not a good optic. If he doesn't care about national polls he shouldn't be talking about them.

I was thinking in terms of premier league football where the team with the most possession wins about 50-55% of the time.

I've already explained why I think, and why most people seem to think, he brings up the polls. It's to remind people of how well he's doing. If he were to say "look at the polls, I'm not doing so well right now" it would sink his campaign. He's saying "look at me, I'm clearly the best candidate because I've got the most support". It surely helped his momentum in the primaries because the frontrunner generally enjoys an advantage. In fact it's generally a trend in primaries that when people's favourite candidates drop out they default to the front runner.

But in terms of election strategy, national polls aren't useful at all because the national result won't get you elected.

Christy42 · 25-09-2016 09:38PM

oik wrote: »

I'm not trying to prove anything. I just stated my opinion that the shy Trump voter exists and I base this, quite credibly, on his connection to racism and other things most Americans don't want to associate themselves with publicly.

People going to Trump rallies still have to walk a gauntlet of protesters to get in and out.

You're the one who said it had been shown not to exist, which is a positive claim which requires evidence.

I don't base my prediction of a Trump victory on polls, although they are a good indicator, I base it off his own skills as a politician. For Hillary attack has been the best form of defence against him but he hasn't been on defence or attack this last month or so. He has been going straight to the people to make his case. He has from now until the election to convince the remaining swing voters that he is capable of being presidential and is not a threat to theirs or anyone else's safety. That's all he has to do to win. For Clinton to win, there's nothing she can do, all she can do his hope he doesn't succeed in changing his public perception.

Great you have an opinion. All you are doing is trying to bring it into the discussion without having to back anything you say up in the slightest. Rallies are irrelevant for polls so that is irrelevant. The claim of the silent voter was made in the primaries for similar reasons and was wrong it was shown not to exist there and nothing major has changed. You can do it for any candidate you want. Hillary is connected to a lot of scandals and you might be worried about going against so many Trump supporters therefore I am of the opinion that there is a silent majority for Clinton. Also as I have phrased this as an opinion I apparently don't have to back up anything at all.

You tried a similar trick with your "here are the benefits of the war crimes my candidate is endorsing but I don't support them at all stick".

ebbsy · 25-09-2016 09:44PM

Tomorrow night if I was Trump I would let Hillary do a fair amount of the talking. She is a real turn off when she opens her mouth.

This might not be as explosive as people expect. They both know each other really well and will know the skeletons in the closet.

Both are likely to take a wait and see approach in my opinion. Although whether the Donald can keep his powder clean is another story.

bekosam · 25-09-2016 09:47PM

When is the debate gonna be on here in Ireland? Is is tonight (in a few hours around 2AM) or tomorrow night (around 2am)? I'm confused by the date and timezones.

Jimbob1977 · 25-09-2016 09:55PM

bekosam wrote: »

When is the debate gonna be on here in Ireland? Is is tonight (in a few hours around 2AM) or tomorrow night (around 2am)? I'm confused by the date and timezones.

Tuesday early hours 2am.... Monday night effectively

oik · 25-09-2016 10:04PM

Great you have an opinion. All you are doing is trying to bring it into the discussion without having to back anything you say up in the slightest. Rallies are irrelevant for polls so that is irrelevant. The claim of the silent voter was made in the primaries for similar reasons and was wrong it was shown not to exist there and nothing major has changed. You can do it for any candidate you want. Hillary is connected to a lot of scandals and you might be worried about going against so many Trump supporters therefore I am of the opinion that there is a silent majority for Clinton. Also as I have phrased this as an opinion I apparently don't have to back up anything at all.

You tried a similar trick with your "here are the benefits of the war crimes my candidate is endorsing but I don't support them at all stick".

If you're not here to share your opinion then why on earth are you here? What's this bull**** about having to back up my opinion with fact?

It's my opinion that Trump will get more votes than expected in this election. Do I have to back that up with facts in order to post it? Don't be ridiculous.

oik · 25-09-2016 10:12PM

Tomorrow night if I was Trump I would let Hillary do a fair amount of the talking. She is a real turn off when she opens her mouth.

This might not be as explosive as people expect. They both know each other really well and will know the skeletons in the closet.

Both are likely to take a wait and see approach in my opinion. Although whether the Donald can keep his powder clean is another story.

I think Clinton will come out over-prepared. Her campaign apparently has her reading a lot of policy briefs and rumour has it having mock debates against Trump lookalikes. This election isn't about policy it's a referendum on the direction of the country.

If Trump tries to go after her on foreign policy it could be his undoing. Simply because hitting her on that involves successfully making the case that she is a habitual interventionist but in doing so he risks coming across as strident like he did in the South Carolina debates against Jeb.

Rather than going after her he should outline his own vision of "peace and stability" and challenge her to do the same. She won't be able to do so effectively because she'll be expecting Iraq, Syria and Libya to be the counterpunch.

ancapailldorcha · 25-09-2016 10:31PM

oik wrote: »

If you're not here to share your opinion then why on earth are you here? What's this bull**** about having to back up my opinion with fact?

It's my opinion that Trump will get more votes than expected in this election. Do I have to back that up with facts in order to post it? Don't be ridiculous.

This is your final warning. Next time you post in this manner, you will receive a ban. If you make a claim, the onus is on you to back it up. Opinions are exempt for obvious reasons.

Overheal · 25-09-2016 10:45PM

oik wrote: »

I think Clinton will come out over-prepared. Her campaign apparently has her reading a lot of policy briefs and rumour has it having mock debates against Trump lookalikes. This election isn't about policy it's a referendum on the direction of the country.

If Trump tries to go after her on foreign policy it could be his undoing. Simply because hitting her on that involves successfully making the case that she is a habitual interventionist but in doing so he risks coming across as strident like he did in the South Carolina debates against Jeb.

Rather than going after her he should outline his own vision of "peace and stability" and challenge her to do the same. She won't be able to do so effectively because she'll be expecting Iraq, Syria and Libya to be the counterpunch.

Then he will need to hope she doesn't suddenly forget that he said he will bomb the **** out of oil fields, steal resources, and take out terrorist families. Nothing says peace and stability like sending forces overseas to kill women and children.

"For example, he said that bombing Libya was “a disaster”, but he then questioned why we aren’t still bombing Libya right now. He claimed that “unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct.” Yet he’s bragged in the recent past about wanting to bring back waterboarding, or “much worse”, killing terrorists’ entire families, and would not be opposed to using nuclear bombs, even in Europe. He remarked that there’s “too much destruction out there – too many destructive weapons,” but just five minutes earlier in the speech, he said the US’s nuclear arsenal was in dire need of “renewal”."

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/27/no-anti-war-candidate-presidential-election-donald-trump-hillary-clinton

oik · 25-09-2016 10:57PM

Then he will need to hope she doesn't suddenly forget that he said he will bomb the **** out of oil fields, steal resources, and take out terrorist families. Nothing says peace and stability like sending forces overseas to kill women and children.

"For example, he said that bombing Libya was “a disaster”, but he then questioned why we aren’t still bombing Libya right now. He claimed that “unlike other candidates for the presidency, war and aggression will not be my first instinct.” Yet he’s bragged in the recent past about wanting to bring back waterboarding, or “much worse”, killing terrorists’ entire families, and would not be opposed to using nuclear bombs, even in Europe. He remarked that there’s “too much destruction out there – too many destructive weapons,” but just five minutes earlier in the speech, he said the US’s nuclear arsenal was in dire need of “renewal”."

I hope for Trump's sake that Hillary thinks pointing those things out will help her. It won't.

Most of it is too extreme for people to even compute. The cognitive dissonance or confirmation bias of both sets of supporters means that that is either dismissed out of hand or used to reaffirm the views of people who will never vote for him.

She only has a limited amount of scorn to dish out in the debate before the headlines begin to read "Scornful Hillary Trumped by calm Donald". She needs to be tactful about how she plays that card.

Trump can easily weasel out of any suggestion he made before about Syria or Libya by saying that the situation on the ground has evolved and there's no longer a need for it.

Most also understand that to have peace and stability you have to first win the war, so they will judge Trump's foreign policy on its likelihood of bringing a speedy conclusion.

They will have to judge Hillary on her likelihood of intervening in another region too.

None of the things you have pointed out as being contradictions are contradictory. They're not comparable in any way.

There's a difference between bombing Libya when Gaddafi was in power and bombing ISIS affiliates in Libya now. Radically different scenarios.

There's a difference between intervening to topple a dictator in an act of aggression against another country and waterboarding terrorists. They are two concepts that share basically nothing in common.

I see nothing wrong with being prepared to use nuclear weapons. That's what they are there for. It is more dangerous to have them if you are not prepared to use them. The majority of white middle class voters probably realise that.

There is a very significant conceptual difference between lamenting the amount of destructive weapons (which could mean anything) "out there" and believing that the USA should have a strong nuclear deterrent. Again, literally nothing contradictory about it.

I see now that it was lifted straight from a Guardian article. Not surprising really. This is what passes for journalism these days. Easily refutable sophistry.

oik · 25-09-2016 11:08PM

CNN reporting that Clinton has removed Ohio from her schedule entirely. Hasn't been there since Labor Day and won't be coming back. She has effectively conceded Ohio to Trump and it's no longer in play.

Suryavarman · 25-09-2016 11:24PM

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

oik · 25-09-2016 11:30PM

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

Are you really sure that got under his skin? You know he does have a sense of humour, don't you? He probably thought it was really funny. Just like everyone else in the country thought it was funny.

alastair · 26-09-2016 12:07AM

oik wrote: »

I didn't kill him with my car. I just failed to push the brakes.

Nope, she's still not responsible for anyone dying in Benghazi.

Black Swan · 26-09-2016 12:10AM

Suryavarman wrote: »

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

The ultimate weapon for Hillary Clinton to invite would be Seth Meyers, who roasted Donald Trump about 4 years ago during an annual press dinner, and Trump was pictured red-faced-mad in the audience while everyone else laughed. Ever since leaving SNL Seth Meyers has made fun of Donald Trump in his Closer Looks, and I doubt that Trump laughs at them either. By comparison, Seth Meyers gave a scorching roast of Obama during a recent press conference dinner, and both Seph and Obama were laughing throughout. Methinks that Donald Trump's Achilles' heel is for someone to make continuous fun of him and his behaviour.

A few examples:
Trump University
Why Trump's Fake Publicist Charade Matters
Trump Lies about his Birther Past
Trump Transforms for the National Election

oik · 26-09-2016 12:29AM

The ultimate weapon for Hillary Clinton to invite would be Seth Meyers, who roasted Donald Trump about 4 years ago during an annual press dinner, and Trump was pictured red-faced-mad in the audience while everyone else laughed. Ever since leaving SNL Seth Meyers has made fun of Donald Trump in his Closer Looks, and I doubt that Trump laughs at them either. By comparison, Seth Meyers gave a scorching roast of Obama during a recent press conference dinner, and both Seph and Obama were laughing throughout. Methinks that Donald Trump's Achilles' heel is for someone to make continuous fun of him and his behaviour.

Yes, it would only be right that Hillary sinks to Trump's level at this stage in the game.

"Have you seen his hands?" Always ends well.

I also just re-watched the correspondents dinner and Trump wasn't laughing but didn't look red faced or mad. Hair jokes, hmm something tells me he's tougher than that. The only word to describe his demeanour at that moment would be determined, which in hindsight makes a lot of sense. If Trump really was as thin-skinned as people claim he is he wouldn't be running for president.

oik · 26-09-2016 01:40AM

Nope, she's still not responsible for anyone dying in Benghazi.

You're right. The Democrats investigated themselves and found no evidence of wrongdoing. That was only a minority report, thankfully.

The actual report is still pending though so we'll reserve judgement until then.

These are the same Democrats by the way who just voted against revoking the immunity of Hillary's IT guy whose Reddit profile was recently found with a post history asking how to tamper with email evidence (for a "VVIP"/"you definitely know this person") from the day the subpoena for her emails was first issued. Reddit has been subpoenaed to recover the deleted posts after people tweeted screenshots to the Republicans on the investigation committee. Imagine that. A guy is caught red handed tampering with evidence and the Democrats vote against revoking his immunity. It's almost as if the Democrats have a disregard for the rule of law. Thank god they were in the minority.

Christy42 · 26-09-2016 08:31AM

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-where-the-race-stands-heading-into-the-first-debate/

Good analysis of what is going on and the main issues for both candidates right now.

The point that a Trump win would be possible without the polls being badly wrong is worrying.
Hillary is certainly still the favourite but a 42%chance of a Trump win is worrying from my point of view.

alastair · 26-09-2016 08:45AM

oik wrote: »

You're right. The Democrats investigated themselves and found no evidence of wrongdoing. That was only a minority report, thankfully.

The actual report is still pending though so we'll reserve judgement until then.

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

cowboyBuilder · 26-09-2016 09:13AM

I wonder what will happen first, Clinton collapses or Trump making an ass of himself?

Brian? · 26-09-2016 09:22AM

Christy42 wrote: »

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-where-the-race-stands-heading-into-the-first-debate/

Good analysis of what is going on and the main issues for both candidates right now.

The point that a Trump win would be possible without the polls being badly wrong is worrying.
Hillary is certainly still the favourite but a 42%chance of a Trump win is worrying from my point of view.

I've settled into the acceptance phase. Trump is going to win. He'll have a friendly congress for 2 years. The US will take a leap backwards in social reform.

My only hope is the GOP are wiped out in the mid terms.

alastair · 26-09-2016 09:57AM

cowboyBuilder wrote: »

I wonder what will happen first, Clinton collapses or Trump making an ass of himself?

If we've learned anything, it's that Trump is reliably swift to make an ass of himself. Clinton will do better out of the debates than Trump. The only real question is whether that will be sufficient to carry her all the way to Election Day, which is still a long ways off.

oscarBravo · 26-09-2016 10:47AM

Brian? wrote: »

I've settled into the acceptance phase. Trump is going to win. He'll have a friendly congress for 2 years. The US will take a leap backwards in social reform.

My only hope is the GOP are wiped out in the mid terms.

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

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

FA Hayek · 26-09-2016 11:31AM

Suryavarman wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

FA Hayek · 26-09-2016 11:40AM

Brian? wrote: »

I've settled into the acceptance phase. Trump is going to win. He'll have a friendly congress for 2 years. The US will take a leap backwards in social reform.

My only hope is the GOP are wiped out in the mid terms.

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

Peist2007 · 26-09-2016 11:43AM

oik wrote: »

She only has a limited amount of scorn to dish out in the debate before the headlines begin to read "Scornful Hillary Trumped by calm Donald". She needs to be tactful about how she plays that card.

No chance. Whatever happens tonight will be reported as a Hillary win.

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments