2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

mrkiscool2 · 07-11-2016 09:18AM

Igotadose wrote: »

FWIW, they're 'calling' Nevada for Clinton based on early voting. I particularly like the tweet from a Hispanic activist embedded in this article:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/11/election-2016-nevada-harry-reid-clinton-trump-early-vote-latinos-214426

And the tweet: "Looks like Trump got his wall after all. A wall of beautiful voters.”

1950's over. Trumplodytes should get that.

Calling anywhere without knowing the percentage, actual lead or demographics of the voters is like saying you are going to live forever. Impossible. If you want, read Nate's analysis of it on 538, he says Nevada looks decent for Clinton but it is far, far too early to call it either way, still close.

That tweet is great though.

Igotadose · 07-11-2016 09:24AM

Excellent piece (watch the video) of, imho, the only commentator worth watching on CNN, Fareed Zakaria:
http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/11/06/cnn-s-fareed-zakaria-highlights-trump-s-racism-and-misogyny-part-core-views-donald-trump/214339

He carefully explains why he's not voting for Trump. Trump is what he says he is. When someone tells you the truth about themselves, believe it.

alchemist33 · 07-11-2016 10:40AM

Anybody know the times results will come in tomorrow night? Or more pertinently, should I stay up late or get up early?!

ancapailldorcha · 07-11-2016 10:41AM

Less of the "jokes" please.

Wanderer78 · 07-11-2016 10:43AM

alchemist33 wrote:

Anybody know the times results will come in tomorrow night? Or more pertinently, should I stay up late or get up early?!

Up early I'd say, lots of ****e talk during the night

Sofa Spud · 07-11-2016 10:44AM

So, finally, just one more day of this car crash election campaign, one more day of BS claim and counter claim, recycling rumours from the weirdest corners of the net, turning fact into opinion and opinions into fact and lots of meaningful and nuanced policy discussions.

Well, maybe not that last bit, but at least it will be over soon, we can grab the popcorn, get ready to stay up tomorrow night with genuine anticipation and then wake up on Wednesday with four years of partisan warfare to look forward to, where impeachment processes will probably begin before the winner even places their hand on the bible in front of the Capitol and the news media can carry on sensationalising and dumbing down what ever happens.

Anyway, lets enjoy the fun today while it lasts....

cnocbui · 07-11-2016 10:53AM

Nabber wrote: »

One of us is confused here. Neither of us will admit it I'm sure.

The question is no longer "was there classified information" that has been established by the FBI. The question is now intent. Did she deliberately circumvent the secure systems? FBI currently say she hasn't. But the case remains open to new evidence. Which we have seen.

She handed her mails to her attorneys, who say they only searched through headers and not content. Again she thought there was no classified information and again no intent.

I'm not sure what we are arguing anymore. But the FBI were clear. Yes she was wrong, but not intentionally. In my opinion it opens a bad precedent

FBI:
“Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. For example, seven email chains were classified at the ‘Top Secret Special Access Program’ at the time they were sent and received...There is evidence to support the conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the positions of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”

So you are admitting there was no classified information on her server so when you said she was possibly putting lives at risk you were in fact telling deliberate porkies.

I'm certainly not confused about the 'email scandal'. It is a trite and minor issue of little consequence that should never have been inflated to the proportions it has been. It has only been exaggerated because the media desperately need and want something negative to talk about in each candidate to create a dynamic. They have treated the election like reality TV. With Trump, they don't have to invent anything negative just take your pick of every morsel on the plate.

The Republican party were incredibly desperate for 'anything' to use against Clinton and this trite little slip was all they could find, before they realised they had endangered the countries future and then backed Clinton as the only sane option.

Akrasia · 07-11-2016 10:56AM

Sofa Spud wrote: »

So, finally, just one more day of this car crash election campaign, one more day of BS claim and counter claim, recycling rumours from the weirdest corners of the net, turning fact into opinion and opinions into fact and lots of meaningful and nuanced policy discussions.

Well, maybe not that last bit, but at least it will be over soon, we can grab the popcorn, get ready to stay up tomorrow night with genuine anticipation and then wake up on Wednesday with four years of partisan warfare to look forward to, where impeachment processes will probably begin before the winner even places their hand on the bible in front of the Capitol and the news media can carry on sensationalising and dumbing down what ever happens.

Anyway, lets enjoy the fun today while it lasts....

Wednesday is when the republicans switch from Vote Trump, to 'Impeach Clinton'

The end of this election campaign is just the start of 4 more years of the lowest form of politics where the republicans spend all their energy trying to prevent anything from getting done, and then blaming Clinton for being ineffective.

Billy86 · 07-11-2016 11:02AM

alchemist33 wrote: »

Anybody know the times results will come in tomorrow night? Or more pertinently, should I stay up late or get up early?!

Of memory serves, I THINK the first ones should start coming in around 1am or just before, our time. That said, if I recall a few of the tiny states in the NE tend to come in before a gap... and then a flood at maybe 3am-ish. Again though going mainly off memory from previous elections here.

Keep in mind that Clinton will sweep the west coast, so you can add together their EC votes and add them to her total, allowing yourself to go to sleep that boy earlier.

cnocbui · 07-11-2016 11:04AM

Akrasia wrote: »

Wednesday is when the republicans switch from Vote Trump, to 'Impeach Clinton'

The end of this election campaign is just the start of 4 more years of the lowest form of politics where the republicans spend all their energy trying to prevent anything from getting done, and then blaming Clinton for being ineffective.

Spot on. Republicans do not believe in democracy or honouring the will of the people, just one party rule - theirs. No doubt Hillary will get her very own shining Starr.

Brian? · 07-11-2016 11:07AM

Billy86 wrote: »

Of memory serves, I THINK the first ones should start coming in around 1am or just before, our time. That said, if I recall a few of the tiny states in the NE tend to come in before a gap... and then a flood at maybe 3am-ish. Again though going mainly off memory from previous elections here.

Keep in mind that Clinton will sweep the west coast, so you can add together their EC votes and add them to her total, allowing yourself to go to sleep that boy earlier.

I think we'll know the result by 3am. The key states will all come in early. If Clinton takes PA and NH, it's in the bag anyway.

It won't be called until much later though. I'll be watching Foxnews as usual, but I don't think we'll see the melt down by GOP talking heads this time.

I'm looking forward to seeing the Senate results come in.

gosplan · 07-11-2016 11:13AM

mrkiscool2 wrote: »

Calling anywhere without knowing the percentage, actual lead or demographics of the voters is like saying you are going to live forever. Impossible. If you want, read Nate's analysis of it on 538, he says Nevada looks decent for Clinton but it is far, far too early to call it either way, still close.

That tweet is great though.

I think they're calling it based on knowing the registered parties of the voters - which they do. And also that there's been a big upsurge in Hispanic voters.

This is all IIRC but I think 2/3rds of Nevada votes have been cast and while they don't know how the actual votes went it would take either

A: a massive amount of registered democrats or Hispanics to have voted Trump

Or

B: a nearly unachievable Election Day turnout for Trump

For the state not to go to Hillary.

I'd go the other way with regards polls. If 66% of the votes are in, it makes far more sense to look at those than at polls.

Of course everything about this election is unprecedented so there is that too.

Sofa Spud · 07-11-2016 11:18AM

Brian? wrote: »

I think we'll know the result by 3am. The key states will all come in early. If Clinton takes PA and NH, it's in the bag anyway.

It won't be called until much later though. I'll be watching Foxnews as usual, but I don't think we'll see the melt down by GOP talking heads this time.

I'm looking forward to seeing the Senate results come in.

Just bear in mind that due to the slightly later than normal election day this year, the US has switched already to daylight savings time, so everything will happen an hour later than usual. Would imagine that NH should be one of the earlier results as it's on EST and could be considered an indication of how the rest of the night could follow as its in Trump's list of must win states.

Billy86 · 07-11-2016 11:20AM

Brian? wrote: »

Billy86 wrote: »

Of memory serves, I THINK the first ones should start coming in around 1am or just before, our time. That said, if I recall a few of the tiny states in the NE tend to come in before a gap... and then a flood at maybe 3am-ish. Again though going mainly off memory from previous elections here.

Keep in mind that Clinton will sweep the west coast, so you can add together their EC votes and add them to her total, allowing yourself to go to sleep that boy earlier.

I think we'll know the result by 3am. The key states will all come in early. If Clinton takes PA and NH, it's in the bag anyway.

It won't be called until much later though. I'll be watching Foxnews as usual, but I don't think we'll see the melt down by GOP talking heads this time.

I'm looking forward to seeing the Senate results come in.

Not sure how accurate 53 os on the senate as opposed to the general, but it has shifted from about a 51% to a 57% chance of a democratic majority in the last 24 hours or so. Clinton has also made a small jump from about 64% to 67% in that time, it will be interesting go see how that shifts throughout the day with the FBI announcement yesterday, though might be too close to be anything significant. If the demo get above 60%and Clinton above 70% it would be telling of a potentially bigger shift that the data wouldn't have had time to allow for.

Sofa Spud · 07-11-2016 11:28AM

Billy86 wrote: »

Not sure how accurate 53 os on the senate as opposed to the general, but it has shifted from about a 51% to a 57% chance of a democratic majority in the last 24 hours or so. Clinton has also made a small jump from about 64% to 67% in that time, it will be interesting go see how that shifts throughout the day with the FBI announcement yesterday, though might be too close to be anything significant. If the demo get above 60%and Clinton above 70% it would be telling of a potentially bigger shift that the data wouldn't have had time to allow for.

Saw a pretty decent analysis yesterday (on CNN I think) that showed the Dems on 50 seats and 2 too close to call. I think 538 had it about the same, with a 50/50 split and VP with the casting vote as the most likely outcome.

TheDoctor · 07-11-2016 12:28PM

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Saw a pretty decent analysis yesterday (on CNN I think) that showed the Dems on 50 seats and 2 too close to call. I think 538 had it about the same, with a 50/50 split and VP with the casting vote as the most likely outcome.

If the Dems get above 48 in the Senate that will give them control considering the two independents are more left leaning.

Billy86 · 07-11-2016 12:30PM

Sofa Spud wrote: »

Saw a pretty decent analysis yesterday (on CNN I think) that showed the Dems on 50 seats and 2 too close to call. I think 538 had it about the same, with a 50/50 split and VP with the casting vote as the most likely outcome.

Was that 50 including King and Sanders (both identify as independent) as Dems? For their leanings they are good as, but just curious. If not, as TheDoctor has pointed out a haul of 48 would be a majority, technically speaking, though would also likely mean quite a bit of bargaining to get their vote on certain things. Which, to be fair, would likely be a good thing.

The narrow lead might make it hard to get things done directly, but the overall implications especially in terms of visibility (e.g. no more McConnell boasting about doing anything but actually governing, not having McConnell/Ryan as a joint front the media etc) could make quite a difference, especially when considering the Supreme Court turning liberal for the first time in 35-40 years or however long it has been.

TheDoctor · 07-11-2016 12:31PM

alchemist33 wrote: »

Anybody know the times results will come in tomorrow night? Or more pertinently, should I stay up late or get up early?!

Staggered from 12am when the first east coast polls close to 4am when the west cost polls close. Alaska on its own at 5am.

With some states one sided they'll call a few the minute they close.

Here's a rough time schedule. Add 5 hours for Irish time.

http://www.270towin.com/closing.php

gosplan · 07-11-2016 12:33PM

gosplan wrote: »

I think they're calling it based on knowing the registered parties of the voters - which they do. And also that there's been a big upsurge in Hispanic voters.

This is all IIRC but I think 2/3rds of Nevada votes have been cast and while they don't know how the actual votes went it would take either

A: a massive amount of registered democrats or Hispanics to have voted Trump

Or

B: a nearly unachievable Election Day turnout for Trump

For the state not to go to Hillary.

I'd go the other way with regards polls. If 66% of the votes are in, it makes far more sense to look at those than at polls.

Of course everything about this election is unprecedented so there is that too.

In the same vein, 53% of Utah voters have already sent in their ballots.

That's made up of 77% of registered Democrats and 46% of registered republicians.

Calculations are that so far Hillary is up by 38-32 with McM on 22.

Obviously the caveats are that far more Republicians still have to vote and that the 'not registered to any party' crowd have to be accounted for too.

An interesting aside though is the Hispanic turnout. Saw it mentioned that this group are significantly underrepresented in English language polls but are also turning out in unprecedented numbers.

Could really be disaster for Trump in places like Florida.

Billy86 · 07-11-2016 12:34PM

TheDoctor wrote: »

Staggered from 12am when the first east coast polls close to 4am when the west cost polls close. Alaska on its own at 5am.

With some states one sided they'll call a few the minute they close.

Here's a rough time schedule. Add 5 hours for Irish time.

http://www.270towin.com/closing.php

By the way if anyone is confused re daylight savings time etc, we are currently in-sync again (e.g. 5 hours ahead of NY, 8 hours ahead of California). Just posting this since I forgot which way it was after last week, myself.

BorneTobyWilde · 07-11-2016 01:06PM

Americans must choose between "division and unity". Hillary
This from a women who called Trump supporters deplorable and Bernie supporters basement dwellers .
Trump on other hand '' I want to be a president for all of the people''

The Latina vote is one based on her biggest lie
'' I want a path to citizenship for illegals ''
She will say anything to win. I feel sorry for the Latina and black community who fall for it every 4 years. Their communities are not improving, in fact we have seen them drifting further into poverty with every Democratic vote.
Obama is an embarrassment to the black community. He did nothing for them, it should have been his legacy. He had eight years and in that time we have seen more division than there was in the previous eight years.

RobertKK · 07-11-2016 01:06PM

There will be great celebrations for whoever wins.
In the longer term, the winning party could well be the losing party. There are so many problems in the US and around the world, and the winner could end up paying, similar to how losing the 2007 Irish general election was the winning strategy (even if it was not what the losers wanted) in the longer game.

It is probably best if Hillary wins as it should put a stop to any future Chelsea bid. I think Hillary is going to be a disaster, same for Trump, so probably best that Hillary wins and finally destroys the Clintons.

RobertKK · 07-11-2016 01:10PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Americans must choose between "division and unity". Hillary
This from a women who called Trump supporters deplorable and Bernie supporters basement dwellers .
Trump on other hand '' I want to be a president for all of the people''

The Latina vote is one based on her biggest lie
'' I want a path to citizenship for illegals ''
She will say anything to win. I feel sorry for the Latina and black community who fall for it every 4 years. Their communities are not improving, in fact we have seen them drifting further into poverty with every Democratic vote.
Obama is an embarrassment to the black community. He did nothing for them, it should have been his legacy. He had eight years and in that time we have seen more division than there was in the previous eight years.

The black community also have Stockholm syndrome. Given it was the Republicans who outlawed slavery, and it was Democrats who wanted to keep it.
It would be like Irish people supporting the Whig government/party who helped starve us.

Christy42 · 07-11-2016 01:11PM

RobertKK wrote: »

There will be great celebrations for whoever wins.
In the longer term, the winning party could well be the losing party. There are so many problems in the US and around the world, and the winner could end up paying, similar to how losing the 2007 Irish general election was the winning strategy (even if it was not what the losers wanted) in the longer game.

It is probably best if Hillary wins as it should put a stop to any future Chelsea bid. I think Hillary is going to be a disaster, same for Trump, so probably best that Hillary wins and finally destroys the Clintons.

What in the world has Chelsea done that is so deplorable to you?!?

Igotadose · 07-11-2016 01:11PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Trump on other hand '' I want to be a president for all of the people''

The ones he decides to let in, let vote in the time he allots, allow to vote after running a gauntlet of his armed goons, ...

Seriously do you think Trump wants to be president for all the people? Including the ones he wants to jail that had the temerity to run against him or donate to his opponents?

Fareed Zakaria's summed him brilliantly: "These, then, are the core views of Donald Trump, expressed over decades, and confirmed by many of his actions: racism, sexism, protectionism, xenophobia and authoritarianism. His views on taxes and regulations are irrelevant. Your view of Hillary Clinton is irrelevant. Donald Trump is not a normal candidate. He is a danger to American democracy. And that is why I will vote against him on Tuesday"

gosplan · 07-11-2016 01:13PM

BorneTobyWilde wrote: »

Americans must choose between "division and unity". Hillary
This from a women who called Trump supporters deplorable and Bernie supporters basement dwellers .
Trump on other hand '' I want to be a president for all of the people''

Without getting into the comment you made about 'saying anything to win', do you not think there's a bit of double standards going on with the above comment?

Do you get why the things trump has said would make certain groups think he perhaps won't be a president 'for all the people'?

RobertKK · 07-11-2016 01:13PM

Christy42 wrote: »

What in the world has Chelsea done that is so deplorable to you?!?

Political dynasties are bad for countries.
They all just feel self entitled, with no new ideas.

Christy42 · 07-11-2016 01:18PM

RobertKK wrote: »

The black community also have Stockholm syndrome. Given it was the Republicans who outlawed slavery, and it was Democrats who wanted to keep it.
It would be like Irish people supporting the Whig government/party who helped starve us.

The parties have rather changed positions on this at this stage. I think looking at what they are liable to do is better than what they did years ago.th

It has been admited that Republicans targeted the black community with the war on drugshttps://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html?client=ms-android-h3g-ie

Dem's have also been more supportive of initiatives to help get black communities out of poverty (social welfare, education etc.). Sure Dems largely ignore them but unfortunately that still makes the Dems leagues above the Republicans.

Overheal · 07-11-2016 01:37PM

RobertKK wrote: »

Political dynasties are bad for countries.
They all just feel self entitled, with no new ideas.

Heh we don't have any of those..

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_political_families

Overheal · 07-11-2016 01:51PM

Odds currently are Trump takes Ohio and Arizona, with Florida, North Carolina and Nevada virtually tied 50:50 % chances of winning.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=mobilebar&v=1

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments