2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Overheal · 09-11-2016 08:24PM

marienbad wrote: »

Can I ask our American friends now that the GOP have swept the board for their thoughts after this extraordinary night ?

"I should start a word file to document how he tears apart the country play by play"

TheOven · 09-11-2016 08:25PM

marienbad wrote: »

Can I ask our American friends now that the GOP have swept the board for their thoughts after this extraordinary night ?

They are too busy pulling themselves up by the bootstraps so they can afford healthcare.

Sam Russell · 09-11-2016 08:34PM

Last time a party had all four levers of power in America was in 1928. (POTUS, SCOTUS, Senate and House).

Remind me, what happened in 1929?

Follow Joe Kennedy's advice - and sell, sell, sell. Go into cash or Gold and keep it all under the bed next to your assault rifle.

Jawgap · 09-11-2016 08:50PM

marienbad wrote: »

Can I ask our American friends now that the GOP have swept the board for their thoughts after this extraordinary night ?

Lived there for a while and I'm a naturalised citizen (dual Irish / US)......gave serious consideration to renouncing my US citizenship! But then thought about it some more and decided worse case it's only 8 years max and renouncing is effectively forever!

Had thought about it before to get out from under the filing requirements of the Foreign Tax Compliance legislation, but it costs over $2k to process.

I'm glad I'm not living there any more (which is weird because normally I do miss the place) and worried about my friends and family who still live there, for reasons to do with healthcare, education and gun control - although most of them live in and around Massachusetts and Connecticut where state legislate may act to mitigate the worst excesses of whatever a Trump administration might attempt to inflict on the country.

Fr Tod Umptious · 09-11-2016 09:03PM

Arytonblue wrote: »

That's a very important point and one of the few good insights I've seen today on this thread. I imagine it will take a long while before the turnout from '08 is bettered, dislike for both candidates, a general fatigue from an awful campaign was always going to favour Trump I think.

Having said that there has to be some perspective here. Outside of the Midwest, Clinton performed exactly as most had predicted, swept the West and Northeast, won Colorado and Nevada, after an early scare won Virginia and nationally will likely(but barely) win the popular vote. She was always likely to lose Ohio and Iowa, Florida and N.C. were complete toss ups, so the true puzzles are Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.

I did a pretty rudimentary analysis of each state and no doubt Trump managed to flip several rural and suburban counties, but that was never going to be enough to win all three. The key for democrats in these states has always been massive turnout in cities like Philly, Pittsburgh, Detroit, Ann Arbour, Milwaukee and Madison. This is how they've won these states since '92 without fail and for whatever reason the turnout was just not there. The polls leading up to election day had her relatively comfortably ahead in all three, so for me it's not the 'secret Trump voter' factor, or even the supposed surge of the white blue collar vote, it was a lukewarm turnout from traditional Democrat strongholds that won the day. Now for this you could come with a myriad of reasons, but I thought it was worthwhile to showcase that this may not have been the overly dramatic shift in America that people are talking about.

Having said all that I still can't believe it.:eek:

Kerry had the same problem in 2004.
A lot of students and younger people who said they were supporting him just did not turn up on the day.
It happens all over the world, you can always rely on older generations to turn out more than younger ones.

And Hillary was also relying on a African Americans too which did not help, seeing as they were unlikely to turn out in as big a numbers as the previous two elections when there was an African American candidate.

There was am interesting piece on the BBC last night (before any results came in).
Since 1980 the racial makeup of the country has seen whites go from 80 something % to 60 something % and the % of blacks and Hispanics increase.
However in Ohio the demographics are much closer to 1980 levels than the national average, and they correctly point out that this would be to Trumps advantage.

Amerika · 09-11-2016 09:08PM

marienbad wrote: »

Can I ask our American friends now that the GOP have swept the board for their thoughts after this extraordinary night ?

I’ll preface my answer with the fact that I am a Republican, Conservative, was a member of the Tea Party in its day, and one of sound mind and judgement. :P

It is good to control the executive, and both the Senate and House, and probably get through most of Trump's least controversial SCOTUS picks.

The GOP majority can get things done if necessary if the Democrats refuse to work with them. But I don’t think they will act in a vacuum as they have shown their willingness to work with Democrats on much of the legislation that has come out, since the GOP captured both the House and Senate. Sure there are a couple of topics that aren’t getting done but those are the ones of complete ideological differences. And I'm glad Congress has been recently working much better than it has been in the past. I can accept some compromise, but I am still pissed at how much spending Congress is allowing to happen.

The bigger question is will the Republicans in Congress work with Trump? That is still an unknown at this point.

26000 Elephants · 09-11-2016 09:09PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

That swamp isn't getting drained any time soon.

Meet the new Boss -
Same as the old Boss.

Wont get fooled again - The Who

Jawgap · 09-11-2016 09:10PM

Amerika wrote: »

I’ll preface my answer with the fact that I am a Republican, Conservative, was a member of the Tea Party in its day, and one of sound mind and judgement. :P

......

I should've said I registered as an independent after I naturalised, but almost always voted Democrat.

4068ac1elhodqr · 09-11-2016 09:19PM

TheDoctor wrote: »

So who wants to start the 2020 thread?

1. Zuckerberg 'facepage'
2. 'Arnie' 'terminator'
3. Will Smith 'independence day'
4. Demis Hassabis 'the AI guy'

Take your pick, waiting for 1000/1 to appear for the facepage teenager, after all he'll know what's on the casting voters minds, from reading everyone's selfie blurbs.

TheOven · 09-11-2016 09:20PM

Amerika wrote: »

I’ll preface my answer with the fact that I am a Republican, Conservative, was a member of the Tea Party in its day, and one of sound mind and judgement. :P

It is good to control the executive, and both the Senate and House, and probably get through most of Trump's least controversial SCOTUS picks.

The GOP majority can get things done if necessary if the Democrats refuse to work with them. But I don’t think they will act in a vacuum as they have shown their willingness to work with Democrats on much of the legislation that has come out, since the GOP captured both the House and Senate. Sure there are a couple of topics that aren’t getting done but those are the ones of complete ideological differences. And I'm glad Congress has been recently working much better than it has been in the past. I can accept some compromise, but I am still pissed at how much spending Congress is allowing to happen.

The bigger question is will the Republicans in Congress work with Trump? That is still an unknown at this point.

What? Are these the same guys that refused to consider a supreme judge pick unless one of them put it forward?

briany · 09-11-2016 09:21PM

(January 2017)

4Chan: AHAHAHAHAH! Sipping on those Liberal tears!! Whites win again!!

(January 2018, Trump enacts legislation that enforces unfairly priced data caps.)

4Chan: KILL HIM

Jawgap · 09-11-2016 09:22PM

Finnley Quaint Wineglass wrote: »

1. Zuckerberg 'facepage'
2. 'Arnie' 'terminator'
3. Will Smith 'independence day'
4. Demis Hassabis 'the AI guy'

Take your pick, waiting for 1000/1 to appear for the facepage teenager, after all he'll know what's on the casting voters minds, from reading everyone's selfie blurbs.

Can't be Arnie - he's foreign born

Amerika · 09-11-2016 09:26PM

TheOven wrote: »

What? Are these the same guys that refused to consider a supreme judge pick unless one of them put it forward?

Yes. That is one of those main ideological differences. If Hillary would have won I have no doubt they would have rushed to confirm Merrick Garland.

TheOven · 09-11-2016 09:28PM

Amerika wrote: »

Yes. That is one of those main ideological differences. If Hillary would have won I have no doubt they would have rushed to confirm Merrick Garland.

That's not what McCain said.

We were told it is up to the next president to decide first, confirming Garland would have just highlighted further their lies.

Amerika · 09-11-2016 09:45PM

TheOven wrote: »

That's not what McCain said.

We were told it is up to the next president to decide first, confirming Garland would have just highlighted further their lies.

McCain and I haven't always seen eye to eye.

09-11-2016 09:47PM

TheDoctor wrote: »

So who wants to start the 2020 thread?

We have to do the Donald Trump impeachment thread first.

aloyisious · 09-11-2016 10:02PM

TheOven wrote: »

What? Are these the same guys that refused to consider a supreme judge pick unless one of them put it forward?

Don is NOT one for feeling under obligation to anyone and the Republicans know that now so I'd imagine they might find him non-cooperative when he chooses. He's no politician but some-one on a mission to fix what he sees as broken, US industry and commerce due to treaties and deals the US and business is signed-up to. He sees part of that is the lure of low taxation.

The other side of the coin is that low taxation, in the minds of a powerful minority, means less federal and state spending money in the kitty they control so they probably won't like Don's ideas on job creation through lower taxation = more spending money in the pockets of spenders and less under their control in federal budget and state treasuries. They haven't got the patience to wait for the economy to pick up and tax money to start flowing in from a boom as Don plans. They'll work with their opposite numbers in the house and senate as they'll see it in their interests to try and rein in the Enfant terrible they let loose.

I reckon Don, though he will probably be the nominator of future SC judges, I can't see him letting any Christian religious group telling him who to choose. He's too much his own man for that. Besides which, the pissed-off public suffering under taxation and job losses put him in the job, not some committed Christian group or vested political Washington set.

TheOven · 09-11-2016 10:06PM

aloyisious wrote: »

Don is NOT one for feeling under obligation to anyone and the Republicans know that now so I'd imagine they might find him non-cooperative when he chooses. He's no politician but some-one on a mission to fix what he sees as broken, US industry and commerce due to treaties and deals the US and business is signed-up to. He sees part of that is the lure of low taxation.

The other side of the coin is that low taxation, in the minds of a powerful minority, means less federal and state spending money in the kitty they control so they probably won't like Don's ideas on job creation through lower taxation = more spending money in the pockets of spenders and less under their control in federal budget and state treasuries. They haven't got the patience to wait for the economy to pick up and tax money to start flowing in from a boom as Don plans. They'll work with their opposite numbers in the house and senate as they'll see it in their interests to try and rein in the Enfant terrible they let loose.

The republicans have full control, they love trickle down economics. There will be no issue getting what they want.

marienbad · 09-11-2016 10:07PM

Amerika wrote: »

Yes. That is one of those main ideological differences. If Hillary would have won I have no doubt they would have rushed to confirm Merrick Garland.

How do you feel about an even more conservative Supreme Court ?

PopePalpatine · 09-11-2016 10:08PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

We have to do the Donald Trump impeachment thread first.

How fortunate for Trump that he's picked a VP that's even worse than himself.

TheOven wrote: »

The republicans have full control, they love trickle down economics. There will be no issue getting what they want.

The last time the GOP controlled the Presidency, both Houses of Congress and the SCOTUS was 1928. Guess what happened next?

seamus · 09-11-2016 10:11PM

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Trump would be throwing toys if he were in this position.

Honestly, even though I think he's one of the most disgusting individuals in modern history, I don't think he would.

He's into crossing the line and "speaking his mind" (read: saying what people apparently want to hear), but he's not that out of touch.

Any concession speech on his part I imagine would likely be along the same lines as his winning speech about a battle hard fought, but it would likely stop short of calling Hillary "my president", or absolving any suggestion of vote rigging. Nevertheless he wouldn't make any accusations of it, it would be a relatively cold but measured one.

He still has businesses to run (badly) and an ego to massage. A complete blow up and a rant about vote rigging and such would hurt that badly.

Itssoeasy · 09-11-2016 10:12PM

I'm listening back to the first hour of the morning Ireland from this morning and a point was made that trump might be the republican president elect but he wouldn't be a conservative republican by definition.

Trump even though the congress will be GOP controlled he will have to learn how to work with congress which I hadn't thought much of.

aloyisious · 09-11-2016 10:12PM

TheOven wrote: »

The republicans have full control, they love trickle down economics. There will be no issue getting what they want.

I added in a 3rd para to my original.

09-11-2016 10:14PM

PopePalpatine wrote: »

How fortunate for Trump that he's picked a VP that's even worse than himself.

Ah hopefully the CIA will pick him off one way or another, if all these internet conspiracy theories about the establishment are to be believed.

Then Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House of Representatives can install himself in the White House.

I can't believe I am allowing myself to dream of Paul Ryan a Kilkenny man in the White House.

devnull · 09-11-2016 10:20PM

27 Years ago today the Berlin Wall came down.

Now Trump is building another Wall.

Shows you how messed up this world has become.

Worst thing is the majority of Trump supporters have no idea why they voted for him apart from a bunch of soundbites.

Suryavarman · 09-11-2016 10:20PM

Akrasia wrote: »

My prediction for next election, is Elon Musk running as an independent against Trump and Michelle Obama on the Democrat ticket.

How do you think this is at all possible? Just because Hillary Clinton decided to enter politics doesn't mean every FLOTUS does the same. Clinton is very much the exception rather than the rule in this regard. I thought it was well known that Michelle Obama has no interest in being involved in politics and was even against Barack running for POTUS.

Amerika · 09-11-2016 10:21PM

marienbad wrote: »

How do you feel about an even more conservative Supreme Court ?

I want a judge that believed that the ordinary meaning of the US Constitution should govern, be opposed to the idea of a living constitution, and opposed to the idea that the judiciary can modify the meaning of constitutional provisions to adapt them to changing times.

CMOTDibbler · 09-11-2016 10:22PM

Amerika wrote: »

The bigger question is will the Republicans in Congress work with Trump? That is still an unknown at this point.

That's the one that I'm interested in. It's not a given considering Trump's preopensity to going on solo runs.

Stheno · 09-11-2016 10:23PM

Amerika wrote: »

I want a judge that believed that the ordinary meaning of the US Constitution should govern, be opposed to the idea of a living constitution, and opposed to the idea that the judiciary can modify the meaning of constitutional provisions to adapt them to changing times.

Seriously? You want to be governed by something hundreds of years old?

aloyisious · 09-11-2016 10:24PM

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I'm listening back to the first hour of the morning Ireland from this morning and a point was made that trump might be the republican president elect but he wouldn't be a conservative republican by definition.

Trump even though the congress will be GOP controlled he will have to learn how to work with congress which I hadn't thought much of.

God forbid that he might change party again and find like-minded fellows in the Democratic Party partly because he's his own man, knows his own mind and will want his own way. Politics makes for strange bed-fellows.

The new year and what he does ref HRC and her "Criminal Acts" might be an indicator on whether he's prepared to work with the democrats. He's a man who knows a good deal when he sees it and will fight anyone all the way to get it.

https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiww66ozJzQAhVpK8AKHcvCC7UQFggwMAM&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.quora.com%2FCan-a-US-president-change-his-party-affiliation-after-being-elected&usg=AFQjCNEw-MZvrkHLqTXHG0vP36J6WecK8A

2016 U.S. Presidential Race Megathread Mark 2.

Comments