2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

CMOTDibbler · 22-10-2016 03:46PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

They identify as African-Americans. They don't sing the anthem or stand for the flag. They promote segregation and disharmony. It's only going to get worse as well.

In terms of sweeping statements, this one takes the biscuit. So much said in so few words.

K-9 · 22-10-2016 03:52PM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

I'm not saying BLM is a black supremists outfit, but there of elements of black supremists in it and using it as an outlet for their racism.

Of course it has, but when it's up against a police system that has some serious issues to deal with regarding race that will happen.

Shouting at each other who is the most racist isn't going to solve the problem or lead to even an understanding of the problems.

InTheTrees · 22-10-2016 03:56PM

blackcard wrote: »

Reuters/Ipsos national poll on friday

Actually I meant which state.

Up by 4% means little without knowing which state you're referring to.

marienbad · 22-10-2016 03:56PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

They identify as African-Americans. They don't sing the anthem or stand for the flag. They promote segregation and disharmony. It's only going to get worse as well.

I always find it astonishing when after over a 200 year history of slavery, lynching's ,jim crow , segregation , mass incarceration we are told its only going to get worse and it is the victims fault ?

What up side down world are we living in ?

K-9 · 22-10-2016 04:00PM

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

When you claim he set race relations back decades, I find it hard to take seriously anything else in that post.

I'd say his Presidency brought to the surface race issues that had been hidden or taken for granted in many respects.

As for his Presidency, time will tell. I wouldn't class it as a great Presidency yet, but that's often the way. It takes 5 or 10 years to get a bigger picture with some degree of hindsight and objectivity.

George W. can be seen as a poor President and Clinton not as good as originally made out, same as Reagan in that respect.

gosplan · 22-10-2016 04:03PM

Funny the way this election has gone.

A lot of Trumps middle ground have disappeared left with the die hards saying it's not a racist campaign while being really racist.

BTW: 90% of the people black people know are probably black so the 90% crime stat makes sense.

If black people associate with less than 10% white people though it becomes a damning statistic.

K-9 · 22-10-2016 04:09PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

They identify as African-Americans. They don't sing the anthem or stand for the flag. They promote segregation and disharmony. It's only going to get worse as well.

That's just a lazy, blanket generalisation that is frankly racist.

I wouldn't make such a lazy characterisation of white people because it's just dumb, so I don't know why anybody would do it for African Americans.

Mr.Micro · 22-10-2016 04:31PM

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

And the great thing about it is everyone has an opinion on which is which.

Well let's face it, the difference is which one is worse? Neither have qualities, both are jaded, faded and just bottom of the barrel. One a a Republican and the other thinks she is Democrat.

Black Swan · 22-10-2016 04:32PM

Amerika wrote: »

You think history is going to proclaim greatness on a President

Not sure what Mr or Ms History will someday proclaim about Obama as president, but one tiny, tiny indicator that they may observe was where presidents stood comparatively to each other in regards to presidential approval ratings given by Americans. Since Obama's term has yet to end, it may be appropriately cautious to compare recent presidents at the same time, or roughly just one month before the general election at the end of their 2nd term.

President | Year | 1-month before election
B. Clinton | 2000 | 57%
Eisenhower | 1960 | 58%
Obama | 2016 | 53%
Reagan | 1988 | 51%
GW Bush | 2008 | 25%

At this point it appears that Obama leads Republican dearly beloved Ronald Reagan, and is better than double Great Recession GW Bush's 25%.

Black Swan · 22-10-2016 05:39PM

It's been suggested that Florida is a must-win swing state for Trump if he is to win president 8 November 2016. FiveThirtyEight polls-only model today forecasts Clinton 72.7% and Trump 27.3%.

RCP most recent Florida polls today:

Poll | Clinton | Trump | Spread
Fox 13 | 49 | 45 | Clinton +4
Quinnipiac | 49 | 45 | Clinton +4
PPP | 49 | 44 | Clinton +5
Gravis | 46 | 42 | Clinton +4

Although I may be in error, methinks that Obama was about +2 in the polls in 2008 for Florida about a month before the election. Of course, the polls could tighten as 8 November 2016 gets closer, which tends to be a normal pattern for presidential elections, but I guess we will see.

alastair · 22-10-2016 06:04PM

Amerika wrote: »

That might be the most ridiculous thing I've read here. You think history is going to proclaim greatness on a President who blames his predecessor for poor economic conditions and who's far left progressive socialist agenda has done anything that advances America? Who's signature legislation, Obamacare, is rapidly deteriorating because of climbing healthcare costs - which it was guaranteed to reduce. A President responsible for the decimation of our national security and our military, and who sells the people on a false narrative propagated about the Iranian nuclear deal. The nation’s only President to preside over an economy that never exceeded 3% GDP growth. A President who worked so hard to bankrupt the coal industry and to decimate the oil and natural gas industry through regulatory fiat, and who has single handedly set race relations in America back decades. History is a fool if it does that.

There's just so much incorrect in this post, it's kind of hard to know where to begin, but why not GDP growth? The figure under GW Bush was 1.8%, and 2.26% under Daddy Bush, but it was a record -5.38% under Hoover, so no, Obama isn't the first (or second, or third) president to preside over growth under 3%.

As to the actual cost implications of Obamacare - check them out here and here.

gosplan · 22-10-2016 06:14PM

Texas is apparently now within the margin or error.

Nuts.

K-9 · 22-10-2016 06:24PM

gosplan wrote: »

Texas is apparently now within the margin or error.

Nuts.

It seems to be considered a swing state now!

Black Swan · 22-10-2016 06:30PM

If Clinton does not win swing states Ohio and Florida, one of her main "firewall" states is Pennsylvania, where most polls for months have favoured her. Today's FiveThirtyEight forecasts a Pennsylvania win (using their polls-only model) for Clinton at 88.4% against a Trump 11.6%. This compares with RCP's most recent list of different polls today:

Poll | Clinton | Trump | Spread
Emerson | 45 | 41 | Clinton +4
Quinnipiac | 51 | 45 | Clinton +6
Bloomberg | 51 | 42 | Clinton +9
Susquehanna | 44 | 40 | Clinton +4
CBS News | 48 | 40 | Clinton +8

Once again there may be some narrowing of poll percentages as 8 November 2016 gets closer, but the fact that Clinton has generally led in almost all Pennsylvania polls may suggest that she will continue to do so up to the presidential election date.

Black Swan · 22-10-2016 06:40PM

gosplan wrote: »

Texas is apparently now within the margin or error.

Nuts.

The Dallas Morning News, one of Texas's largest circulation newspapers had endorsed Hillary Clinton and not Donald Trump early September 2016, which was the first time in 75 years that they endorsed a Democratic presidential nominee. Although the paper may be influential, methinks that Texas will remain Republican on 8 November 2016 given its past EC voting.

Itssoeasy · 22-10-2016 06:40PM

gosplan wrote: »

Texas is apparently now within the margin or error.

Nuts.

That is actually mental. I mean of all the states in the USA that you would put your house on of never even coming close to a swing state it's Texas.

Itssoeasy · 22-10-2016 06:41PM

Black Swan wrote: »

gosplan wrote: »

Texas is apparently now within the margin or error.

Nuts.

The Dallas Morning News, one of Texas's largest circulation newspapers had endorsed Hillary Clinton and not Donald Trump early September 2016, which was the first time in 75 years that they endorsed a Democratic presidential nominee. Although the paper may be influential, methinks that Texas will remain Republican on 8 November 2016 given its past EC voting.

Oh Texas will probably stay republican but it's possible it might be way closer than people think.

Overheal · 22-10-2016 06:45PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

90% of black homicide victims are killed by their own people. They just like to ignore that fact.

And how many whites kill whites? Oh, 82%? :rolleyes: I can't with you

Overheal · 22-10-2016 06:46PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

They identify as African-Americans. They don't sing the anthem or stand for the flag. They promote segregation and disharmony. It's only going to get worse as well.

That's a broad racist brush you have there.

A Little Pony · 22-10-2016 06:55PM

If Donald can't hold down the Southern states, then what chance has he with the yankee states? He needs to win a few of them.

InTheTrees · 22-10-2016 07:35PM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

That is actually mental. I mean of all the states in the USA that you would put your house on of never even coming close to a swing state it's Texas.

Utah is another but it looks like it might go to Mullin, the independent republican instead.

Black Swan · 22-10-2016 07:37PM

FiveThirtyEight has been credited with forecasting several past presidential elections correctly. Ohio historically has been one of the major swing states, but when 538's polls-only model is compared with their polls-plus fundamentals model they suggest a very close election between Clinton and Trump. The polls-only today forecasts a Clinton win at 60.1% over a Trump 39.9%, but their polls-plus shows Clinton 53.2% over Trump 46.8%, which methinks makes Ohio too close to call today. Perhaps that will change one way or the other between now and 8 November 2016?

Nody · 22-10-2016 07:46PM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

That is actually mental. I mean of all the states in the USA that you would put your house on of never even coming close to a swing state it's Texas.

Well I could see it from an ever increasing Hispanic population which will swing it over time.

Fr Tod Umptious · 22-10-2016 08:11PM

Black Swan wrote: »

Not sure what Mr or Ms History will someday proclaim about Obama as president, but one tiny, tiny indicator that they may observe was where presidents stood comparatively to each other in regards to presidential approval ratings given by Americans. Since Obama's term has yet to end, it may be appropriately cautious to compare recent presidents at the same time, or roughly just one month before the general election at the end of their 2nd term.

President | Year | 1-month before election
B. Clinton | 2000 | 57%
Eisenhower | 1960 | 58%
Obama | 2016 | 53%
Reagan | 1988 | 51%
GW Bush | 2008 | 25%

At this point it appears that Obama leads Republican dearly beloved Ronald Reagan, and is better than double Great Recession GW Bush's 25%.

I think a lot of it has to do with who will replace them.

With Clinton or Trump up next people may be giving Obama a bit more props than he really deserves.

frostyjacks · 22-10-2016 08:48PM

Overheal wrote: »

And how many whites kill whites? Oh, 82%? :rolleyes: I can't with you

So why aren't white people going round looting shops and attacking police? Five cops murdered by a black activist in Dallas, but Trump supporters are the real racists. Yeah right.

Sofa Spud · 22-10-2016 08:58PM

Black Swan wrote: »

FiveThirtyEight has been credited with forecasting several past presidential elections correctly. Ohio historically has been one of the major swing states, but when 538's polls-only model is compared with their polls-plus fundamentals model they suggest a very close election between Clinton and Trump. The polls-only today forecasts a Clinton win at 60.1% over a Trump 39.9%, but their polls-plus shows Clinton 53.2% over Trump 46.8%, which methinks makes Ohio too close to call today. Perhaps that will change one way or the other between now and 8 November 2016?

In fairness, Nate Silver is very credible, so if his model is throwing that out, then it'll at least add a bit of tension to stay up for...

Overheal · 22-10-2016 08:59PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

So why aren't white people going round looting shops and attacking police? Five cops murdered by a black activist in Dallas, but Trump supporters are the real racists. Yeah right.

That has - nothing? Nothing to do with white on white or black on black murder rates?

Your question is entirely disingenuous. But I'll answer: those looters and such do not feel invested in a society that is not in many ways invested in them.

But we will wait and see how many Trump supporters raise torches and rifles when he loses this election in a landslide I guess. It's hard to be upset at society in America though, as someone who is white, when there are frankly so many white privileges. For starters, not being treated like guilty until proven innocent in law enforcement scenarios.

oscarBravo · 22-10-2016 09:25PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

So why aren't white people going round looting shops and attacking police?

Let's get this clear: it's your assertion that white people don't loot shops or attack police?

Care to revise that position, or are you going to double down on what has to be a strong contender for the stupidest thing ever said on this forum?

alastair · 22-10-2016 10:30PM

frostyjacks wrote: »

So why aren't white people going round looting shops and attacking police?

They are. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/king-white-men-killed-7-8-cops-u-s-year-article-1.2539913

Christy42 · 22-10-2016 10:45PM

Sofa Spud wrote: »

In fairness, Nate Silver is very credible, so if his model is throwing that out, then it'll at least add a bit of tension to stay up for...

They have the election as essentially over. I can't see the state of ohio by itself being worth staying up for.

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments