POTUS Election thread

[Crandar]

Sad day for the Cruzlim believers.

Trump is definitely going to be the Republican candidate, but I'm not sure that this fascistoid has no chances of defeating Hillary.The distance between them will tend to shorten and perhaps it will become a very contested campaign, because of Trump's populism and Hillary's natural talent of becoming widely despised.

[GeneralHankerchief]

In further earth-shattering news, Kasich has also dropped out.

I'll admit, I'm a little let down by all of this. I really wanted my bread-and-circuses this summer to take the form of a contested convention. Ah well.

[lars573]

My best bet is that Clinton wins handily in the electoral college (despite narrower percentages in PA, NY etc) and becomes president. If the GOP continues in it's disarray or splinters, this then yields a Social Democrat in the Presidency in 8 or 12 years (won't accept the label, but that's what they'll be). The SCOTUS will move to a Warren court level of activism. Their will be, functionally, four parties in the US though they won't use these labels -- Social Democrat, Traditional Democrat, Fiscal Conservatives, Social Reactionaries. The former two will be under the umbrella of the Democrat party and the relative power stance of each will shape most USA policy. The third group will be a minor element of the Democrats and a chunk of the Republican party. The Social Reactionaries may, or may not, end up constituting their own party.

It won't last though (all four groups being under two party banners). Canadian political parties were something like that until the 60's (Liberal party for the first two, Progressive conservatives for the last two). Then the social democrats formed their own party, the NDP. The social reactionaries then formed their own party (Reform > Canadian alliance) in the early 90's. Then a decade later they ate the fiscal conservatives and tried to wear their skin to win elections. And when that didn't work they actively suppressed their social reactionary tendencies and stressed the fiscal conservatism. And that leaves out the Quebec nationalist party that formed in 1988.

My point being the US is quite close to the current bi-polar () left/right political parties fracturing into a left wing party, centrist party(ies), right wing party dynamic. At least for a time. What will for sure break it is a 3rd party candidate winning.

[Hooahguy]

In further earth-shattering news, Kasich has also dropped out.

I'll admit, I'm a little let down by all of this. I really wanted my bread-and-circuses this summer to take the form of a contested convention. Ah well.

Never fear, with the GOP race finished, some Republicans are saying they will vote in the Democrat open primaries for Sanders just to make things interesting. We might get a brawl on the convention floor yet.

[Fragony]

Kinda like the troll vs the antichrist now

[Sarmatian]

Kinda like the troll vs the antichrist now

Which is which?

[Lizardo]

Which is which?

I would say for certain hillary clinton is the antichrist, although i wouldn't call donald trump the Troll.

[Xiahou]

With Trump wrapping up the nomination, I can say confidently that for the first time, I will not be voting for the GOP presidential candidate. Feels.... kinda good actually.

[Fragony]

I would say for certain hillary clinton is the antichrist, although i wouldn't call donald trump the Troll.

I couldn't find a better word but I meant it in a positive way. I like Trump even if he says some outragious things. What I like is that he simply doesn't need all the lobbyists, that has to be scary for some. For me as an European it's good as well as Trump isn't interested in Russia, the EU, and the middle-east. Go Trump. I can assure you that in the Netherlands at least want to send a LOT of politicians to blockflute-lessons instead of having them pushing buttons

[Gilrandir]

Kinda like the troll vs the antichrist now

Husar vs Brenus? They see eye to eye most of the times.

[Fragony]

Husar vs Brenus? They see eye to eye most of the times.

Grow a thicker hide if you can't deal with sarcasm, you got the right to be rediculed at all times

[Gilrandir]

Grow a thicker hide if you can't deal with sarcasm, you got the right to be rediculed at all times

And I pay back with a vengeance. But my comment was sarcastic as well, bearing in mind how Husar is fond of trolling (so that it is sometimes different to detect if he is serious) and how proud Brenus is at flaunting his atheism.

[Fragony]

And I pay back with a vengeance. But my comment was sarcastic as well, bearing in mind how Husar is fond of trolling (so that it is sometimes different to detect if he is serious) and how proud Brenus is at flaunting his atheism.

Do pay it back with vengaence if you can, or just apreciate the sarcasm, I don't mind it, I often deserve it

[Husar]

[a completely inoffensive name]

My 21-year-old son summed up the attitude that prevails among many in that group. His thoughts on the current system were "Just let it all burn."

Are we wrong?

[Fragony]

Are we wrong?

Don't think so, no different in Europe a lot of people want the EU to be completily dismanntled, chaos would be ok.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Are we wrong?

Not entirely. The problem with trashing an existing system is the two fold. First, after the glee of trashing the current annoyances you have the transition costs of gettint a newnsystem in place. The second concern is that the new system Ll too often tends to be the same as the old system (new labels usually) in rapid order thus nullifying the desired change...but not the cost.

[Hooahguy]

God Bernie has to be incredibly dumb and/or tone-deaf to believe half the junk he is spewing. Seriously, watch this drivel.

He starts off by saying he won 46% of the pledged delegates. Then says he has about 7% of the superdelegates and how undemocratic they are and that same tired line. Does he not realize that he would still be losing anyways? How can he say he is the stronger candidate? If he really was the stronger candidate he would be winning against Hillary. But hes not. Ignoring the delegates, hes behind by almost 3 million in popular votes. So why on earth would they ever switch to him? It truly defies common sense.

[Husar]

God Bernie has to be incredibly dumb and/or tone-deaf to believe half the junk he is spewing. Seriously, watch this drivel.

He starts off by saying he won 46% of the pledged delegates. Then says he has about 7% of the superdelegates and how undemocratic they are and that same tired line. Does he not realize that he would still be losing anyways? How can he say he is the stronger candidate? If he really was the stronger candidate he would be winning against Hillary. But hes not. Ignoring the delegates, hes behind by almost 3 million in popular votes. So why on earth would they ever switch to him? It truly defies common sense.

Eh, he's saying that it is not fair if 91% of the superdelegates choose a candidate before the race has even begun. What he implies I assume is that this can make people believe that noone else is going to win anyway and then a significant portion of voters will vote for the candidate backed by all the superdelegates. Which they may not do if the superdelegates didn't back anyone until the convention for example.

He may be very stubborn but I agree with him if that is his point, it's a psychological manipulation of the voters. Of course noone says that a party-internal election of a candidate has to be super-democratic, but if it's supposed to be, this is not the way to go about it.

And why does it bug people so much that he stays until the actual vote for the candidate? Is that not in theory how it is supposed to be? Otherwise noone but Hillary could have run in the first place since she was going to win anyway, especially with all the superdelegates she already had....and if it works like that every year, welcome to Chinese-style "democracy"?

[Hooahguy]

Eh, he's saying that it is not fair if 91% of the superdelegates choose a candidate before the race has even begun. What he implies I assume is that this can make people believe that noone else is going to win anyway and then a significant portion of voters will vote for the candidate backed by all the superdelegates. Which they may not do if the superdelegates didn't back anyone until the convention for example.

He may be very stubborn but I agree with him if that is his point, it's a psychological manipulation of the voters. Of course noone says that a party-internal election of a candidate has to be super-democratic, but if it's supposed to be, this is not the way to go about it.

His campaign results prove otherwise. Clearly he managed to get plenty of people to come out for him despite the supposed bias. Also there is the 2008 situation when superdelegates switched from Hillary to Obama when they were convinced that he was the stronger candidate in the end. So its not set in stone, Bernie has had over a year to convince the superdelegates that he is the stronger candidate. But he hasnt, and he is behind by almost 3 million popular votes. Not because things were rigged against him, but because he successfully alienated minority voters which are crucial for victory. No reason that the supers shouldnt declare who they think is the better candidate off the bat.

And why does it bug people so much that he stays until the actual vote for the candidate? Is that not in theory how it is supposed to be? Otherwise noone but Hillary could have run in the first place since she was going to win anyway, especially with all the superdelegates she already had....and if it works like that every year, welcome to Chinese-style "democracy"?

Its one thing to stay in and advocate your positions in an attempt to change the party platform. Its another thing to stay in, cry about how the DNC is unfair because he is losing, and keep driving wedges within the party. Thats why people are mad. Not that hes advocating for certain policies, but that hes saying its all corrupt and the only reason he is losing is because of how corrupt things are. Oh and lets not forget the harassment of Democrat officials and superdelegates which Bernie refuses to take responsibility for despite him saying that Trump was responsible for the actions of his supporters. Bernie's advisers have come out saying that they have the blinders on and do not care what harm they might do to Hillary in the process. In private he is telling Democrats that he knows he lost. But in public he says the opposite. At a rally last week, the chant "Bernie or bust" went up and Bernie said nothing to hush them or say anything that would make people think he would really support Clinton in the general. That is why so many people are angry at him and are calling on him to at least be honest about his chances to his supporters.

[Husar]

His campaign results prove otherwise. Clearly he managed to get plenty of people to come out for him despite the supposed bias.

You can't know what would have happened had Clinton not been handled as the sure winner by almost everyone from the beginning. It is entirely possible that people voted for her thinking she has the better chances anyway who would actually prefer Sanders otherwise. What I'm saying is there is no proof either way.

Also there is the 2008 situation when superdelegates switched from Hillary to Obama when they were convinced that he was the stronger candidate in the end. So its not set in stone, Bernie has had over a year to convince the superdelegates that he is the stronger candidate. But he hasnt, and he is behind by almost 3 million popular votes. Not because things were rigged against him, but because he successfully alienated minority voters which are crucial for victory. No reason that the supers shouldnt declare who they think is the better candidate off the bat.

All of America is rigged against a socialist, no need to try to convince me that nothing is rigged.

Its one thing to stay in and advocate your positions in an attempt to change the party platform. Its another thing to stay in, cry about how the DNC is unfair because he is losing, and keep driving wedges within the party. Thats why people are mad. Not that hes advocating for certain policies, but that hes saying its all corrupt and the only reason he is losing is because of how corrupt things are. Oh and lets not forget the harassment of Democrat officials and superdelegates which Bernie refuses to take responsibility for despite him saying that Trump was responsible for the actions of his supporters. Bernie's advisers have come out saying that they have the blinders on and do not care what harm they might do to Hillary in the process. In private he is telling Democrats that he knows he lost. But in public he says the opposite. At a rally last week, the chant "Bernie or bust" went up and Bernie said nothing to hush them or say anything that would make people think he would really support Clinton in the general. That is why so many people are angry at him and are calling on him to at least be honest about his chances to his supporters.

Yeah, well, the Trump presidency will be interesting...

[Hooahguy]

You can't know what would have happened had Clinton not been handled as the sure winner by almost everyone from the beginning. It is entirely possible that people voted for her thinking she has the better chances anyway who would actually prefer Sanders otherwise. What I'm saying is there is no proof either way.

Okay, so Clinton announced her candidacy in mid-April. Sanders announced that he would run at the end of that month, but at the time he was rather unknown, being an independent from Vermont. Even from the start the Democratic party didnt like him for his actions in congress and his lack of support for other Democrats. After all, Bernie only joined the Democratic Party to hop on their ticket. But that is besides the point. I think that the turnout for Bernie is a testament that the early endorsements had little to no effect. If Bernie truly was the stronger candidate, the popular vote would have shown that. But he is not, and the superdelegates are merely putting their vote towards the candidate who they think has the best shot at winning in November. Sure, we can go down the conspiracy route, but then we might as well say that Hillary is an evil Nazi robot who has been preserved since 1945 for the sole purpose of defeating a socialist candidate.

All of America is rigged against a socialist, no need to try to convince me that nothing is rigged.

Well yes, socialism is still viewed very negatively here. It might also have something to do with the fact that Bernie is a very weak candidate in general in the sense that he cannot articulate his policy positions, and has consistently shown poor understanding of how financial and political systems work. His speeches all sound very similar, he always pivots back to income inequality as the root of all problems (which is a big reason why he lost the African-American community) and even in interviews he has shown that he doesnt actually know what he is talking about beyond his stump speech. So tell me why people should be convinced by Bernie's arguments. I think that socialism can make headway in the US, I just think that Bernie was a poor candidate to do so.

Yeah, well, the Trump presidency will be interesting...

Do you honestly think that Trump will win? The only way I see that happening is if there is a major terror attack (in the US or Europe) right before the election.

[Husar]

Hillary is an evil Nazi robot who has been preserved since 1945 for the sole purpose of defeating a socialist candidate.

Probably true.

income inequality as the root of all problems

Apart from cancer and a few other medical conditions this is true, I get there very often myself without even wanting to when I think about why this or that is a problem. Most forms of violence come from income inequality. Even when people are violent because of lead poisoning, they got the lead poisoning from income inequality in the first place. The world wide pursuit of income inequality has poisoned the oceans with plastic, the air with green house gases and the minds of the people with envy. Perhaps we are biologically programmed for income inequality but that ain't mean it's not the cause of most of are problems, ya'know.

Do you honestly think that Trump will win? The only way I see that happening is if there is a major terror attack (in the US or Europe) right before the election.

And why would it not be in the interest of e.g. ISIS to get us exactly there?

[Hooahguy]

Apart from cancer and a few other medical conditions this is true, I get there very often myself without even wanting to when I think about why this or that is a problem. Most forms of violence come from income inequality. Even when people are violent because of lead poisoning, they got the lead poisoning from income inequality in the first place. The world wide pursuit of income inequality has poisoned the oceans with plastic, the air with green house gases and the minds of the people with envy. Perhaps we are biologically programmed for income inequality but that ain't mean it's not the cause of most of are problems, ya'know.

Sure in the grand scheme things it probably is, but to minority communities (and I think most people in America, which is why Hillary is winning) they need more than trickle down income inequality promises. I wish I could remember the article but basically it said that the African American community are tired of the pie in the sky promises that people like Bernie peddle, as they have heard them before and they never come through. Also Bernie has said dumb things like insinuating that all Black people are poor and live in ghettos. Meanwhile the Clintons have spent their entire careers building a close relationship with the African American community that is now paying off. This is a good article about the issue. Point is that most people just arent buying these huge promises being made. Many people bought them in 2008 and look how that turned out.

And why would it not be in the interest of e.g. ISIS to get us exactly there?

Who knows, they probably would want to. I certainly hope the Western police and intelligence services can prevent any such attack from happening at all.

EDIT: Articles like this dont help his case either.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Some of the latest polls have Trump equaling or surpassing Clinton in support among likely voters. Enjoy the media trying to make a close race out of it so that they can sell ad dollars and justify the continued political reportage.

Barring some kind of major "event" that alters the shape of electoral thinking, the race at the real point of decision -- the Electoral College -- favors Clinton by a decided (though not quite yet decisive) margin.

A good source for state-by-state information.

Drilling down a bit into the polls, noting that Trump is drawing in new/young voters etc., I break it out as follows (remember, the magic number is 270 of 538):


Safe Democrat States in the General: CA-55, DC-3, HI-4, ME-3 (overall plus 1st dist), MD-10, MA-11, NY-29, OR-7, RI-4, V-3- WA-12 [141 total].
Likely Democrat States in the General: CT-7, DE-3, IL-20, ME-1 (2nd dist), MN-10, NJ-14, NM-5, VA-13, WI-10 [83 total].
Clinton likely EC votes 224.

Safe Republican States in the General: AL-9, AK-3, AR-6, ID-4, KS-6, KY-8, LA-8, MS-6, MT-3, NE-4 (overall plus dist. 1 & 3), ND-3, OK-7, SD-3, TN-11, WV-5, WY-3 [89 total].
Likely Republican Sates in the General: AZ-11, GA-16, IN-11, SC-9, TX-38, NE-1 (2nd dist) [86 total].
Trump likely EC votes 175.

States too close to call in the General: CO-9, FL-29, IA-6, MI-16, MO-10, NV-6, NH-4, NC-15, OH-18, PA-20, UT-6 (most say likely republican, I do not) [139 total]

To get to 270, Clinton needs to win 46 of the 139 too close to call states (and I am being generous in my assessment of Trump's chances in PA and MI.

To get to 270, Trump needs to win 95 of the 139 -- effectively he has to run much of the too close to call table, which is tough indeed.


Yes, Trump jumps up GOP votes in states where they haven't been competitive for the last few elections by being a "different" Republican. But the 5-10% swing in votes isn't enough in states where Dems often hold a 12-15 point advantage. Clinton will win those states less handily (51-47 as opposed to 62-37) but she will still win them and all of their electoral college votes. Only Maine and Nebraska use "partials" in the Electoral College. The rest are winner take all.


And Yes, Husar, you are correct that the USA is geared up to stop socialists from succeeding politically in a broad way. I would argue the barrier is more cultural than political system structure though.

[Hooahguy]

Some of the latest polls have Trump equaling or surpassing Clinton in support among likely voters. Enjoy the media trying to make a close race out of it so that they can sell ad dollars and justify the continued political reportage.

That is true, but personally I dont put any faith in election polling until the conventions. Looking at the polling averages, we see a bump in the polling for Trump as even the #nevertrump people are falling in behind him. I imagine once the Democrats end their process as well the polls will change.

[Kralizec]

Trump is going to get demolished. Hillary has been attacked by republicans for 20+ years, people already know the dirt. In recent years there's been the Benghazi and e-mail "controversies", but especially in the former that's just republicans trying to make mountains out of molehills.

The Donald has a mass grave of skeletons in his closet. For instance, his associations with mob related people. Granted, it's old news, but it hasn't been covered extensively...yet. Rubio's and Cruzifer's (teehee) attacks will seem minor compared to what Trump will be exposed to in the general election.
In addition, people like Mitt Romney and Lindsey Graham might not be the most popular figures nationwide, but nevertheless a lot of people still listen to what they say. Like when they catagorically refused to support Trump.

Of course, most political analysts have been wrong about Trump since the beginning of the primary season. Luckily I'm not a political analyst.

[Lizardo]

If bernie becomes independent Trump wins, if its hillary vs trump trump wins, If romney runs independent trump loses

[Hooahguy]

If bernie becomes independent Trump wins, if its hillary vs trump trump wins, If romney runs independent trump loses

Bernie has said he wont go independent before, but at this point who really knows. Romney said he wont run so I would be shocked if he did, and I think you are way off when you say Trump beats Clinton. I think it might be close but I think you are overestimating his chances.

[Idaho]

This email server stuff... does anyone other than a hardcore GOP believer really give a ****?