POTUS Election thread

[Hooahguy]

Here's a slightly different take, showing how several different factors together could have conspired to the misleading polling results.

I was actually about to post that! Another aspect which I think had a massive effect is that protectionism is big in Michigan due to the flagging auto industry which was blamed on NAFTA and foreign cars. Bernie railed against NAFTA while Hillary supported it. I think that is what swung things in his favor as well.

[Greyblades]

Going to miss him, he did good despite being roadblocked at every single corner by Republicans.

Obama was a good president, both for the US and the rest of the world.

He maybe shouldn't have compromised as much as he did, but, as some time passes, he will be recognized as one of the better ones.

A little early to be judging his tenure, isnt it? Oh well.

I think Obama is America's Could've-Been-King: he had both House and Senate in his party's hands for the first three years and in theory the Democrats could have retained the momentum. Getting much of his campaign promises fulfilled in that time I believe would have been enough to continue their dominance but they didnt* and once the 2011 elections rolled over that was it; The House of Representatives became Republican and Obama's hands became tied and the democrats would fail to recover, even losing the senate in 2015.

After Bush America wanted an A+ president, needed it even. Obama looked like he could have been that President during his campaign but he turned out to be a B- at best, and the dissapointment is biting the democrats in the ass.

[Hooahguy]

A little early to be judging his tenure, isnt it? Oh well.

I think Obama is America's Could've-Been-King: he had both House and Senate in his party's hands for the first three years and in theory the Democrats could have retained the momentum. Getting much of his campaign promises fulfilled in that time I believe would have been enough to continue their dominance but they didnt* and once the 2011 elections rolled over that was it; The House of Representatives became Republican and Obama's hands became tied and the democrats would fail to recover, even losing the senate in 2015.

After Bush America wanted an A+ president, needed it even. Obama looked like he could have been that President during his campaign but he turned out to be a B- at best, and the dissapointment is biting the democrats in the ass.

I think an issue was that he rammed through Obamacare not realizing the blowback it would have in the 2010 midterm election, losing them the House of Representatives. Or maybe he realized the Democrats were going to lose the House anyways and got through what he saw was a vital piece of legislation.

[Hooahguy]

I think the losses in congressional seats have more to do with the democrats being really lousy at mobilization, especially in midterm elections.

But yeah he won't be a JFK or anything like that and to compare him to Lincoln is silly to begin with, but I think in the end he will be remembered more fondly than Bush, probably along the lines of Clinton than anything else.

[Beskar]

I think it was more related to the radicalisation of the right. You have a large segment who are hypersalivating over policies which are simply bad, but play into an alternative reality mindset, versus a more generally apathetic and diverse population. So yes, there are mobilization issues for democrat supporters by comparison.

[Viking]

Two fresh polls from Illinois disagree on who comes first, but there is one thing they both agree on:



(Sanders in dark blue)

[Viking]

Sanders is ahead of Clinton in Missouri by one point according to the latest, sizeable poll there.

[Hooahguy]

So Rubio is out, Trump wins Florida, Illinois, and North Carolina. Kasich wins Ohio and Cruz might win Missouri. Meanwhile, Hillary wins handily in Florida, Ohio, and North Carolina. Will probably win Illinois (results not fully in yet) and its close in Missouri with Sanders in the lead.

[Hooahguy]

Either way it is a bad move by Sanders to leave for a couple days before the most important primary of the campaign for him.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

We will see; currently it is trending Clinton strongly in delegates even though only modestly in the popular.

[Hooahguy]

You would consider a lead of well over two million popular votes modest?

[Hooahguy]

So Clinton and Trump both won New York in a decisive way. Bernie's chances grow ever slimmer (to the point where the idea of him winning the nomination without the superdelegates is a delusion) and the GOP race will almost certainly go to convention.

[Hooahguy]

Trump swept the Acela Primaries, and Clinton only lost Rhode Island. Trump seems to be the definite nominee, and Sanders now has no realistic path to the nomination.

And today Trump did his second pre-written speech (the first one being at AIPAC) and while many were initially taken aback by how "presidential" he sounded, the speech was standard Trump-isms.

[Hooahguy]

Cruz made the interesting choice of Fiorina as his VP which is a bit early to do (probably won't pay off) but I've heard rumors that he might angle to run third party if he doesn't get the GOP nomination, aiming to create a Constitution Party or something along those lines. Considering that he's done things to screw over his allies to advance himself in the past, I wouldn't put it past him. Not to mention the fact that most of the GOP leadership loathes him (former speaker Boehner compared him to Lucifer today), I wouldn't expect any real loyalty to the party from him.

[Xiahou]

Trump will win in 2016.

It's hard to believe with his favorables so low in certain demographics- particularly women. But, I suppose it's possible. If the Democrats could have dredged up anyone more interesting than Hillary they would've won in a walk. It's telling that a 70+ year old socialist is the candidate that "excites" the youth vote.

I've done my fair share of nose-holding votes for the GOP candidate- but Trump will never get my vote. He's a con man and an obvious one at that. Seeing so many so-called conservatives get taken in by such blatant confidence schemes is deeply disappointing.

Cruz made the interesting choice of Fiorina as his VP which is a bit early to do (probably won't pay off) but I've heard rumors that he might angle to run third party if he doesn't get the GOP nomination, aiming to create a Constitution Party or something along those lines. Considering that he's done things to screw over his allies to advance himself in the past, I wouldn't put it past him. Not to mention the fact that most of the GOP leadership loathes him (former speaker Boehner compared him to Lucifer today), I wouldn't expect any real loyalty to the party from him.

I actually like Fiorina as a VP choice. However, most people see her choice for Cruz as a desperation move- probably because it is one.

[Hooahguy]

I actually like Fiorina as a VP choice. However, most people see her choice for Cruz as a desperation move- probably because it is one.

I think it was a poor choice by Cruz, even if it was done after he won the nomination. Fiorina doesnt really add anything to the ticket besides the fact that she is a woman. Shes not very likeable (neither is Cruz) and her business record isnt a great one. Just bring up her time at HP and that is really all one needs to discredit whatever claim she has of being good at business. Her whole career is really a fascinating one of failing upward.

[Pannonian]

It's hard to believe with his favorables so low in certain demographics- particularly women. But, I suppose it's possible. If the Democrats could have dredged up anyone more interesting than Hillary they would've won in a walk. It's telling that a 70+ year old socialist is the candidate that "excites" the youth vote.

I've done my fair share of nose-holding votes for the GOP candidate- but Trump will never get my vote. He's a con man and an obvious one at that. Seeing so many so-called conservatives get taken in by such blatant confidence schemes is deeply disappointing.


I actually like Fiorina as a VP choice. However, most people see her choice for Cruz as a desperation move- probably because it is one.

Over here in the UK, we've got a hard left (for the UK Labour party) arch-rebel (he's voted against the Labour party 500+ times in his parliamentary career, including 200+ times in the last 5 years of Labour government) who's leading the Labour party after a landslide leadership election, highlighted by particular enthusiasm among the youth vote.

[HopAlongBunny]

It looks like a Clinton vs. Trump cage match is set for our entertainment.
I am amazed at the degree of polarization in this election cycle.
When Trump announced, I told one person that there simply wasn't enough hate in the electorate to push him to the top; I stand embarrassed and corrected.
This is going to be awesome!!!

[Xiahou]

I think it was a poor choice by Cruz, even if it was done after he won the nomination. Fiorina doesnt really add anything to the ticket besides the fact that she is a woman. Shes not very likeable (neither is Cruz) and her business record isnt a great one. Just bring up her time at HP and that is really all one needs to discredit whatever claim she has of being good at business. Her whole career is really a fascinating one of failing upward.

To be fair, Trump isn't a particularly good businessman either. He could have taken his daddy's money and put it into index funds and he'd have a higher net worth than he does today. He is however, very good at self-promotion.

It looks like a Clinton vs. Trump cage match is set for our entertainment.
I am amazed at the degree of polarization in this election cycle.
When Trump announced, I told one person that there simply wasn't enough hate in the electorate to push him to the top; I stand embarrassed and corrected.
This is going to be awesome!!!

Ever seen "In the Mouth of Madness"? The final scene comes to mind when I think of this election season...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[drone]

It looks like a Clinton vs. Trump cage match is set for our entertainment.
I am amazed at the degree of polarization in this election cycle.
When Trump announced, I told one person that there simply wasn't enough hate in the electorate to push him to the top; I stand embarrassed and corrected.
This is going to be awesome!!!

Until January, when the realization hits that one of these sociopaths is in charge of the country.

[Hooahguy]

Well, it's been established that the discourse around here has fallen to new lows so why even try?

[AE Bravo]

That attitude is why it will keep being as low as it is.

[Hooahguy]

It takes two to tango.

Edit: to clarify, my point is that it takes a group effort to raise the quality of discussion around here. Hard to raise the quality of discussion if one side refuses to cooperate. You can't force it either. So if Strike and co are willing to discuss these emails without resorting to calling me a shill, I would love to debate this.

[Greyblades]

What are you guys talking about?

[Hooahguy]

Basically the DNC got their email hacked, revealed that a bunch of DNC people were super mad about Bernie and his campaign. Some think that it's proof how the DNC was rigged for Hillary, others believe that it's nothing but people letting off steam in internal emails. And so far the debate here about this has deteriorated to calling people shills so there's that.

[Greyblades]

Yeah I gotta go with Hooahguy on this one, the DNC being pissed at Bernie is as obvious as the republicans mainstays being pissed at Trump and I dont think the DNC specifically rigged it for bernie because the super delegate system is so screwed up they dont need to.

[Sarmatian]

When you have people who are supposed to be neutral creating strategies to specifically discredit one candidate to the benefit of another, it is definitely not normal.

It's no wonder people in USA are so pissed off at the system. Even the sane ones might vote for Trump just to see it all burn to the ground.

[Hooahguy]

Political parties are allowed to have a preference for candidate. I would love to see what the RNC was saying about Trump during the primary. Considering that the head of the party was publicly against Trump during it, I would be shocked if behind the scenes strategies weren't being discussed to defeat him.

I also find it weird that Wikileaks is strangely pro-Russian, who seem to really like Trump. I mean doesn't Assange have his own show on RT? I wouldn't be surprised if he was being fed this data by the Russian government to sow discord among the democrats, considering that Trump seems to be friendlier to Putin than Hillary.

[Greyblades]

So I found another forum I frequent commenting on the leaks and I had a look at them.

Yeah hooahguy you are making excuses dude. I mean look at this:

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/10808

In the days before Hillary Clinton launched an unprecedented big-money fundraising vehicle with state parties last summer, she vowed “to rebuild our party<http://articles.philly.com/2015-08-29/news/66006747_1_o-malley-democratic-party-party-leaders> from the ground up,” because she proclaimed “when state parties are strong, we win.”
But less than 1 percent of the $61 million raised by that effort has stayed in the state parties’ coffers, according to a POLITICO analysis of the latest Federal Election Commission filings.

The venture, the Hillary Victory Fund, is a so-called joint fundraising committee comprised of Clinton’s presidential campaign, the Democratic National Committee and 32 state party committees. The set-up allows Clinton to solicit checks of $350,000 or more from her super-rich supporters at extravagant fundraisers including a dinner at George Clooney’s house<http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/hillary-clinton-george-clooney-fundraiser-221207> and at a concert at Radio City Music Hall<http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/katy-perry-elton-john-perform-hillary-clinton-fundraiser/story?id=37359679> featuring Katy Perry and Elton John.

The victory fund has transferred $3.8 million to the state parties, but almost all of that cash ($3.3 million, or 88 percent) was quickly transferred to the DNC usually within a day or two by the Clinton staffer who runs the committee, POLITICO’s analysis of the FEC records found.

By contrast, the victory fund has transferred $15.4 million to Clinton’s campaign and $5.7 million to the DNC. And most of the $23.3 spent directly by the victory fund has gone towards expenses that appear to have directly benefitted Clinton’s campaign, including $2.8 million for “salary and overhead” and $8.6 million for web advertising that mostly looks indistinguishable from Clinton campaign ads and that has helped Clinton build a network of small donors who will be critical in a general election expected to cost each side well in excess of $1 billion.

The arrangement has drawn protests from campaign finance reformers and allies of Clinton’s Democratic rival Bernie Sanders. They see it as a circumvention of campaign contribution limits by a national party apparatus intent on doing whatever it takes to help Clinton win the nomination and then the White House.

But it is perhaps more notable that the arrangement has prompted concerns among some participating state party officials and their allies. They grumble privately that Clinton is merely using them to subsidize her own operation, while her allies overstate her support for their parties and knock Sanders for not doing enough to help the party.

“It’s a one-sided benefit,” said an official with one participating state party official. The official, like those with several other state parties declined to talk about the arrangement on the record for fear of drawing the ire of the DNC and the campaign of the party’s likely nominee.

In fact, the DNC, which has pushed back aggressively on charges that it is boosting Clinton at the expense of other Democrats, has advised state party officials on how to answer media inquiries about the arrangement, multiple sources familiar with the interactions told POLITICO.

“The DNC has given us some guidance on what they’re saying, but it’s not clear what we should be saying,” said the official. “I don’t think anyone wants to get crosswise with the national party because we do need their resources. But everyone who entered into these agreements was doing it because they were asked to, not because there are immediately clear benefits.”

DNC’s CFO discusses possible ways to exploit Sander’s religion or lack thereof to sway Southern Baptists away from him. The DNC’s CEO responds with ‘AMEN.’ Marshall has subsequently said he was referring to a “surrogate” and not Sanders.

Re: No shit

From:DaceyA@dnc.org
To: MARSHALL@dnc.org, MirandaL@dnc.org, PaustenbachM@dnc.org
Date: 2016-05-05 12:23
Subject: Re: No shit


AMEN

Amy K. Dacey | Chief Executive Officer

Democratic National Committee

430 S. Capitol Street, SE Washington, D.C. 20003
202-528-7492 (c) | 202-314-2263 (o)
DaceyA@dnc.org


On 5/5/16, 1:33 AM, "Brad Marshall" <MARSHALL@dnc.org> wrote:

>It's these Jesus thing.
>
>> On May 5, 2016, at 1:31 AM, Brad Marshall <MARSHALL@dnc.org> wrote:
>>
>> It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to
>>ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he
>>has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could
>>make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps
>>would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist.

[Hooahguy]

Im not excusing the DNC, not at all. The people involved in the Jewish heritage email should be fired. But theres no proof it was actually done. As for the Politico thing, I dont see how that has had any real impact at all, considering that Hillary has had the worst media coverage compared to anyone else. I simply dont think that its a smoking gun.