2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Overheal · 20-10-2016 08:05PM

Sam Russell wrote: »

1. Do not forget her age.

2. If the claims about her health are true (I do not believe them myself), she might not run for health reasons.

3. Her ratings might be so bad, it might cause her to not run.

Michelle Obama might be a contender - you never know.

McCain is 80 and his heartbeat held out the 8 years we were worried about President Palin for.

alastair · 20-10-2016 08:13PM

Three terms under one party is enough to stack the odds against the incumbent. Daddy Bush wasn't the worst president, and he was well liked, but he was soundly defeated by fresh options - not just Clinton, but Perot did very well in the same election - clearly it was house-clearing time. A fresh proposition might well be the best defence against that dynamic - given that it's very difficult not to carry unwelcome baggage as the incumbent.

aloyisious · 20-10-2016 08:28PM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I see the Donald has just said he will accept the election result "if he wins" he probably thinks that will do.

I think that's just about publicity. I believe Don believes ALL publicity is good and his ad libs are solely for that. He also can't help responding to the O/P, instead of keeping his mouth zippered shut.

aloyisious · 20-10-2016 08:33PM

KingBrian2 wrote: »

It came across a lot clearer. Hillary's record as a US senator was often thrown out there by her to show all the major important decisions she made.

And Don gave her the lead-in with his continuous reference to Hillary's 30 year service.

BorneTobyWilde · 20-10-2016 08:35PM

Clinton boasts about her tax returns being public, does anyone really believe that she doesn't have accounts in Saudi Arabia with millions of dollars in them. I think we all know she most likely does.

B_Wayne · 20-10-2016 08:36PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Clinton boasts about her tax returns being public, does anyone really believe that she doesn't have accounts in Saudi Arabia with millions of dollars in them. I think we all know she most likely does.

Hillary has released her tax returns, you're making Hillary guilty of everything with zero proof.

BorneTobyWilde · 20-10-2016 08:40PM

B_Wayne wrote: »

Hillary has released her tax returns, you're making Hillary guilty of everything with zero proof.

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 ''

alastair · 20-10-2016 08:41PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Clinton boasts about her tax returns being public, does anyone really believe that she doesn't have accounts in Saudi Arabia with millions of dollars in them. I think we all know she most likely does.

You think wrong.

alastair · 20-10-2016 08:43PM

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 ''

What exactly do you believe has been 'proving' against her?

She's an extremely wealthy woman, with no evidence of any financial wrongdoing, nor a particularly extravagant lifestyle. What do you imagine she's doing with this fantasy money in Saudi Arabia?

aloyisious · 20-10-2016 08:45PM

I think this was raised here earlier and it's probably best answered by some-one from the US voters. If Don was to stand down, for whatever reason, and the V/P nominee was to step forward for the position, how much would it change what the US polls say about the eventual outcome and increase the chances of the Republicans taking the presidency at this late stage? Is there any "scuttlebutt" in the air about such a chance?

BorneTobyWilde · 20-10-2016 08:51PM

alastair wrote: »

You think wrong.

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.

InTheTrees · 20-10-2016 08:56PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

But if you look at all the things that have been proving against her then you would assume....'

I dont see you proving anything and assuming a whole lot.

I see you absolutely hate her (for ill defined reasons) and want to try and imply negativity wherever you can.

CMOTDibbler · 20-10-2016 09:01PM

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.

And yet with all that 'evidence' you seem to feel the need to make more stuff up?

Black Swan · 20-10-2016 09:01PM

InTheTrees wrote: »

I dont think she'll be a one termer. We'll have to wait and see of course.

If Hillary Clinton is elected 8 November 2016 and sworn-in 20 January 2017, she will be faced with the same Republican roadblocks in the US House led by Speaker Ryan, and if the Republicans continue to control the US Senate, same there too. So the Obama 2-term condition with the Republican "Party of No" will continue into Clinton's 1st term as president, the purpose solely being for the Republicans to make the new Democratic party president look bad with little passed by congress, so that the Republicans can use this against Clinton in 2020. Such is the dysfunctional state of the 2-party system in America as cautioned by John Adams. The infighting between the two parties has gotten so extreme that it no longer functions as a check-and-balance, rather like 2 NFL teams with fans mindlessly cheering their teams on: "Right or wrong no matter, but always my team!"

CMOTDibbler · 20-10-2016 09:07PM

Black Swan wrote: »

If Hillary Clinton is elected 8 November 2016 and sworn-in 20 January 2017, she will be faced with the same Republican roadblocks in the US House led by Speaker Ryan, and if the Republicans continue to control the US Senate, same there too. So the Obama 2-term condition with the Republican "Party of No" will continue into Clinton's 1st term as president, the purpose solely being for the Republicans to make the new Democratic party president look bad with little passed by congress, so that the Republicans can use this against Clinton in 2020. Such is the dysfunctional state of the 2-party system in America as cautioned by John Adams. The infighting between the two parties has gotten so extreme that it no longer functions as a check-and-balance, rather like 2 NFL teams with fans mindlessly cheering their teams on: "Right or wrong no matter, but always my team!"

Yeah. This is just a sideshow to the main event which many Americans don't really understand is the real problem.

The US really needs a third party, but people are so entrenched at this stage that it wouldn't matter if Jesus himself came along and started it. He'd be completely ignored in the red v blue war.

Overheal · 20-10-2016 09:21PM

It really needs just no parties at all, but that will never happen. Just each candidate to stand on their own principles. Instead 2 parties form for the most part this fixed party platform of theirs neither of which encompasses most americans (seen by the turnout rates). The DNC and GOP bill themselves as these multi-issue parties and they're diametrically opposed. Sure there are caucuses and things but that doesn't address the real issue.

Black Swan · 20-10-2016 09:29PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Clinton boasts about her tax returns being public, does anyone really believe that she doesn't have accounts in Saudi Arabia with millions of dollars in them. I think we all know she most likely does.

No, we don't "all know," nor do you in the slightest. So this election should be decided my partisan rumour and innuendo without an once of evidence to support such claims? Certainly Clinton has a lot to answer for that has been documented, but Americans are also include rumour and innuendo about hidden overseas bank accounts, which you have ZERO evidence to support your claims?

It's a fact, not some unsubstantiated rumour, that Donald Trump has not revealed his many years of tax returns as other presidential candidates have for decades in past elections. The audit excuse is nonsense. Not all his returns are currently being audited. He could reveal many years that are not under current audit by IRS. What does Donald Trump have to hide by not revealing any of his tax returns?

Zubeneschamali · 20-10-2016 09:35PM

Black Swan wrote: »

Such is the dysfunctional state of the 2-party system in America

The problem is not the 2 party system, the problem is the Republican party.

Roanmore · 20-10-2016 09:37PM

I'd love to know what Trump would have to do for Giuliani to condemn him, he's become a parody of himself.

Black Swan · 20-10-2016 09:40PM

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

The US really needs a third party, but people are so entrenched at this stage that it wouldn't matter if Jesus himself came along and started it. He'd be completely ignored in the red v blue war.

Because of the vast diversities of problems, needs, and interests found in their population of approximately 318 million people, methinks that America needs more than just a 3rd party, rather several parties that have to come together to make a government, and by doing so go through the art of compromise so that the constituents of each party have a greater chance to be heard than in the current 2-party NFL gaming situation: "Winning isn’t everything; it’s the only thing," during presidential election 2016, regardless of how much voter collateral damage occurs.

Akrasia · 20-10-2016 09:46PM

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 · 20-10-2016 09:58PM

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 · 20-10-2016 10:17PM

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 · 20-10-2016 10:18PM

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 · 20-10-2016 10:23PM

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

Rjd2 · 20-10-2016 10:39PM

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 · 20-10-2016 10:55PM

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 · 20-10-2016 10:56PM

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 · 20-10-2016 11:08PM

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 · 20-10-2016 11:12PM

captbarnacles wrote: »

OK I'll bite.

Why? This one is all over bar the voting.

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments