|
DemeaninDemon posted:Trump lacks the Delta brain wave or whatever that renders himself invincible to the brain spawn attacks. Also, I've been doing enough pro-H-Dawg posting that I figure it's about time I  myself. If Trump wins, I figure I'll be too busy wandering our new post-apocalyptic hellscape bartering for food and water with shotgun shells and gasoline to care much about what happens to my account.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
#
¿
Aug 27, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 07:22 |
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:The media (fox) will play the fraud case regardless of Hillary's margin. The House will bitch and complain. Meanwhile, she will appoint a new generation of liberal judges to poo poo all over whatever oppressive legislation gop states come up with. Since WW2, the average age at which a justice resigns/retires/dies is 73.25 years old. Note that this specifically excludes FDR's nominations, in which he chose younger justices so as to keep them on the court for a long time. So I can't be accused of cherry-picking data and also to take modern medical advances into account, since Harry Blackmun retired in 1994, the average age at which a justice resigns/retires/dies is 82.6 years, which accounts for the last 5 vacancies. In 2020, if none of them resign, retire, or die, Ginsberg will be 87, Anthony Kennedy will be 84, Steven Breyer will be 82. Steven Breyer would be older than all but three former post-WW2 justices (William J. Brennan Jr., Harry Blackmun, and John Paul Stevens) and he would simultaneously be only the third-oldest person currently sitting on the Supreme Court. Let that sink in for a moment. All current justices (and Garland) are between 56 and 68 years of age, and it is reasonable to think that Hillary would appoint justices in the same age range as well. If Hillary appoints two additional justices between 2016 and 2020, that would be five liberal justices under the age of 63, with a strong possibility of six. That'd mean a 20+ year liberal majority on the Supreme Court, which hasn't been solidly liberal since the late 1960s. It's easy to forget that prior to Ruth Bader Ginsberg being nominated by Clinton in 1993, the last time a Democrat appointed someone to the Supreme Court was when Thurgood Marshall was appointed by LBJ in 1967, with ten Republican candidates appointed between 1967 and 1991. If the Republican Party continues its current disarray at the national level, it'll be interesting to see what Clarence Thomas does. By most measures, he's one of the most conservative Supreme Court Justices in history. He's already the 26th longest serving justice in history (out of 112 total) and he'll be in the top 20 before 2020, and top 10 by 2024. By 2028, he would be the longest-serving justice in history, at which time he would be 80 years old. Although his age is relatively in line with Roberts, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Garland (or whoever else would be confirmed for that spot), he is already the second longest-tenured member of the court. Although he is well regarded by his colleagues, including those with whom he disagrees ideologically, his lack of participation in oral arguments, his already long term of service, and the court's impending liberal shift raise questions about how long he will remain on the bench as well. Regardless of what happens with the House and the Senate, or what legislation gets passed or doesn't get passed, this will be her enduring legacy. Edit: If anyone would like the raw data, here's the ages of all the post-WW2 justices when they retired/resigned/died: 70 - Harold Hitz Burton 63 - Fred M. Vinson 68 - Tom C. Clark 66 - Sherman Minton 78 - Earl Warren 72 - John Marshall Harlan II 84 - William J. Brennan, Jr. 61 - Charles Evans Whittaker 66 - Potter Stewart 76 - Byron White 57 - Arthur Goldberg 59 - Abe Fortas 73 - Thurgood Marshall 79 - Warren E. Burger 86 - Harry Blackmun 80 - Lewis F. Powell 81 - William Rehnquist 90 - John Paul Stevens 76 - Sandra Day O'Connor 80 - Antonin Scalia Azathoth has issued a correction as of 20:31 on Aug 28, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2016 20:25
|
|
|
celeron 300a posted:I think the election will be called for Hillary before the polls close here but Trump will not give a concession speech until the day after
|
|
#
¿
Aug 30, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:oh okay so never then
|
|
#
¿
Aug 31, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Mrit posted:I was the first to toxx for a permaban
|
|
#
¿
Sep 2, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
zoux posted:Honestly the only concern I have is that it won't be a mega GOP backbreaking landslide but just an obama 12 landslide It's a pipe dream, but the only way that I'm going to feel comfortable is with Democrats running the table in competitive races in the Senate and picking up 20-30 seats in the House. That'll give them good odds of keeping the Senate in 2018, put them in a good position for 2020 to pad their lead, and a fighting chance to reverse some of the damage done in the 2010 redistricting when the 2020 House elections roll around. I do agree with The Ninth Layer, there's plenty of time for the race to widen, and I think that it will, it's just those down-ballot races that worry me the most.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
iospace posted:The thing is, even a 50-50 house combined with a Clinton win means she at least will replace Scalia, provided Garland doesn't approved first. Agreed, I'll be happy with a Senate majority after the election, even one that is 50-50 with Kaine as the tiebreaker, but getting whoever replaces Scalia confirmed is really only a third of the battle. In order to ensure a five justice liberal majority for the first time since the 60s, she needs to get two more justices beyond Scalia's replacement confirmed. Rather than rewrite, I'll just quote part of something I wrote earlier in this thread: Azathoth posted:<snip> But that would still only be four (relatively) young, liberal justices. Breyer has openly said he doesn't care who appoints his replacement and that politics shouldn't factor into it, and the rumor is that Kennedy doesn't want to step down during the term of any president who would appoint a justice not in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade. The inevitable march of time may force one of both of their hands, but without a Senate majority from 2018-2020, Clinton could be all but assured that any vacancies from 2019-2020 would go unfilled, since Republicans paid basically no price for holding up Garland's nomination and there's no reason to think that they wouldn't do the exact same thing over again if the opportunity presented itself. A durable liberal majority on the Supreme Court is by no means guaranteed even if Hillary wins and the Democrats control the Senate. It becomes far more likely, however, if they can keep control of the Senate after the 2018 midterms, which basically hinges on doing well in this election, since Republicans are all but guaranteed to make up ground in the 2018 midterms, when a bunch of senators that got swept in with the 2008 wave come up for reelection. Azathoth has issued a correction as of 21:53 on Sep 5, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 5, 2016 21:51
|
|
|
AMorePerfctGoonion posted:I'm disturbed by the narrowing of Clinton's lead, and have to admit I've been avoiding the election lately so I don't I have hope on your first point, in that I think Clinton's outreach to the Hispanic community and Trump's comments on said community will drive more first-time voters. I would hesitate to call them entirely young voters though. Listen to the way that Flake and McCain talk about Arizona and the Hispanic population there. I think we'll see a really big percentage of first-time voters this year. As for how that would help, in the 2004-2012 presidential elections, non-Hispanic whites turn out 64-67% of the time and Black voters turn out 60-66% of the time. However, Hispanic voters turn out only 47-49.9% of the time. Hispanic voters also vote Republican about 30% of the time, compared to 10% for Black voters. If Hispanic voters turned out and voted the same as Black voters, Texas, and Arizona would be swing states. Obviously, that's not going to happen this election, but even marginal increases in turnout and marginal movement towards Democrats would put Florida out of reach, and there's no winning combination in the electoral college if Florida goes blue. If Florida goes Democrat, the best Trump could hope for would be to win New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa, Colorado, and Nevada, which would produce a tie in the electoral college. And that's a best case scenario. Where I think it's going to be telling, and why I'm not personally sweating poll numbers, is the way that Obama outperformed his polls in 2012. He built a world-class GOTV apparatus, and by all accounts, Hillary is replicating Obama's playbook. And bear in mind that Obama outperformed against Romney, who put together as good of a GOTV operation as he could, and Trump seems to think that all he needs is a Twitter account. It's no reason to be overconfident, if anything, it's a cautionary statement against overconfidence, but I think that Hillary is in a decent place right now.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 7, 2016 18:05
|
|
. However, I believe there are several factors that polls are not accounting for that favor Trump. I still think that there is going to be a Clinton landslide and that it will come out of nowhere and surprise the pollsters.
|
Instant Sunrise posted:if trump wins in november i've got bigger problems to worry about than a forums account
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Well, the silver lining of Puerto Rico's economic collapse is that large numbers of ready to vote Latinos have been pouring into places like Florida. I believe the majority of actual new voter registrations since 2012 has come from such migration within the US. Add in that the Cuban vote is getting less and less Republican friendly and the state is becoming ever more blue in the Presidential election. Too bad nobody but old assholes come out to vote in the midterms though. AMorePerfctGoonion posted:Excellent points. Trump seems to think GOTV is a cable channel. It's one thing to respond to a poll and another to actually get your rear end to Mars and vote on election day. I guess we should be thankful that Trump is both a control freak and a manchild so not only does he fire anyone who is competent and assertive enough to say no to the Donald, he has no interest in the boring parts of running a presidential campaign. He's only interested in getting off on his Nuremberg rallies, which must be crack cocaine to a narcissist. When this election is over it will be sad to see him holding rallies with only a few diehards showing up as tumbleweeds roll by. He'll go into severe ego withdrawal. I hope he pulls a Napoleon and retreats to a private island with a few sycophants. He can be A president, and keep out all the illegal immigrants he want. As for Hispanics not rejecting Trump, it's important to remember just how many Hispanics would self-identify as non-Hispanic white and/or feel no kinship with minority groups. It's something that's played out over the course of American history, so it shouldn't really be surprising. It wasn't that long ago that Irish and Italian immigrants in the northern part of the U.S. were treated as an entirely separate demographic, what I've heard referred to as "northern ethnics". Aside from being more recent immigrants, they also were heavily Catholic, which was a way bigger deal back then than it is now. In time, they ceased voting as a block and are now included in the general "non-Hispanic white" category in all these polls. I could keep going back to other immigrant groups before that, because waves of immigration like this happen more often than you'd think, but I think I've made my point. It's the one counter-argument to the demography=destiny argument that Republicans will become increasingly marginalized each election cycle that I find to be potentially compelling. It's also worth noting that Hispanic voters have, on occasion, been amenable to the Republicans pretty recently. George W. Bush did particularly well by de-emphasizing immigration rhetoric and emphasizing socially conservative policies, which adhered well to what the Catholic Church promoted. Also remember that W. won New Mexico in 2004, which subsequently went to Obama by 15% and 10% in the next two elections, largely on changes in the voting patterns of non-white Hispanics in the state. Granted, the Republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot, legs, and arms on immigration policy and minority outreach, so there's a better chance than not that the Hispanic vote becomes increasingly solidly Democratic, but I don't think that it can be taken as a given.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 04:11
|
|
|
AMorePerfctGoonion posted:Sweet Grandiosa Abuela! Trump's moving down on 538, finally. I think we've just reached peak trump and it's all downhill from here. The Clinton Landslide Has Begun, Racists Take Shelter!
|
|
#
¿
Sep 8, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:how many days behind the news do the polls lag? It isn't unusual to see the results of a poll go public the day after it is completed, particularly for national polls, but those polls will include responses from all across the date range the poll was in the field. Thus, it may be a full week before any trend can be discerned, but it may start to affect polling results within 24-48 hours. However, unless it's a catastrophic event, (and what the hell would that even be anymore in this cycle?) the overall effect is going to be indistinguishable from noise and/or other trends. Over time, it'll become apparent, particularly if pollsters start asking about it specifically. To sum it up, 2-7 days, with it becoming clearer the further from the event we get.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 13, 2016 23:29
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I need to compile a count of the number of "toxxing for clinton because if Trump wins, X that means it won't matter" posts. I can break out the ones that specifically envision scenarios from mad max and fallout.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Whoa whoa whoa, where's Bradley Whitford and Jon Spencer's corpse?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 16, 2016 04:33
|
|
|
AMorePerfctGoonion posted:Cheeto's hit his ceiling and Clinton's hit her floor so we can only go up from here. This election is going to be decided by the debates, and 3 full debates will be enough to convince anyone who hasn't drunk the Trumpaid that he is totally unsuitable to be the president. Also the media have been acting like Clinton was a shoo-in but now with Trump being a real possibility it will make third party voters reconsider hopefully. Peaking too early might hurt Trump more than it helps him. And the press are finally calling him on his bullshit, some less so than others. The four-way race has Hillary's vote share essentially unchanged since she lost her convention bounce, and in the two-way race, Hillary's lost about 1.5 points while Trump has gained 4, according to RCP anyways. My read of that is that Hillary's terrible, horrible, no good, very bad week has made folks who are currently planning to vote Libertarian or Green less inclined to come back home and vote Democrat, but that very few people right now who say that they're voting Hillary over the other three options inclined to break rank and go Trump. It seems unlikely that if, after this week, folks still support Hillary even when given the third-party options, that they're not committed voters. Thus, I think what we're seeing right now represents Hillary's floor. On the other hand, I think that Trump is seeing a lot of disgruntled Republican voters coming back home. He's had a good couple of weeks, and Campaign Shakeup Team 3.0 seems to actually keep him on message more than before, which is giving folks who really want to go Republican the cover to do so. Trump is currently on an upward swing, and I haven't seen signs of a plateau or decline yet. He's pretty close right now to his convention peak, if not right at it, and I think it remains to be seen if he can push through it and keep gaining support, or if he'll bump into the ceiling and start a downward slide. Obviously, my hope is that we're seeing Hillary's floor slightly above Trump's ceiling, but there's way, way too many undecided and third-party protest voters in the polls for me to assume that Trump doesn't have additional room to grow. That's why Hillary must win those debates in the public mind, or at least take two out of three, or else things are gonna get real dicey on November 8. I think that she ultimately will come out ahead, but she's not a good debater, and Trump is a hell of a showman, so this isn't something that I'm taking as a given. There are a lot of voters who don't like both candidates and are gonna take what they see in the debates, or hear about the debates from other folks, to help make their final call.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2016 00:24
|
|
|
Swedgin posted:yeah, Hillary may be a substandard orator but she's definitely an above-average debater Obviously, I hope she cleans his clock, he implodes, the dead rise (and vote Democrat), and that she continues to run up the score in an unsportsmanlike manner in debates two and three, but I'm not holding my breath.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
I'm sure that she's prepping to do just that, and I do think she'll be able to pull it off, I'm just saying that what she's attempting has a high degree of difficulty for anyone. She's gotta resist the urge to pounce on Trump when he stumbles, and keep the debate as specific and issue-focused as you can be when you're debating someone like Trump. When Trump stumbles and says something stupid, she's gotta use that as a springboard to get a little wonkish while staying on point and show a deeper understanding of whatever topic Trump just flubbed. The more she can bog Trump down in the minutiae of policy, the better contrast she is against him. If she can pepper that with a few on message stories that show her softer side and her motivations, I think she'll do fine.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 01:25
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Hillary Clinton is a strong, independent older woman (who don't need no man), who presumably has been dealing with dumb bullshit sexism in politics for two or three times as long as I've been alive. I have faith she can handle the cheeto. Although it's hard to predict such a thing without the benefit of time, I think that when we look back on this election, we'll see Matt Lauer's perceived failure as the inflection point where coverage of Trump changed. Look at how the major news outlets handled Trump's birther announcement bait and switch press conference. A month or two ago, I think he would have gotten off scot free on that (it's that wacky Trump being Trump!), but now there's rumblings about how he played the media, and no one likes to be played. If the media turns on him, and does so hard, that's essentially game over for him, since his entire strategy is based around media dominance, and while there is a certain set of voters for whom being attacked in the media is a badge of honor, I don't think that they're anything but a vocal minority of solidly Republican voters anways.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 19, 2016 17:13
|
|
|
lozzle posted:Finally took the time to wade through the Trump toxx thread.  This represents states where 538 has Trump favored, plus Colorado, where some recent polls have him ahead, though he does trail in the aggregate there. In an election held today, I would not discount the above map as something that could happen, though I don't think it would be a likely outcome. However, the election isn't being held today. Trump has time to win over Colorado, and if he does that, plus plays successful defense in every other swing state, he could squeak out a narrow win. He also has a few other scenarios which are within the realm of the possible, if only just barely, such as this:  Or this:  Or this:  Or this:  Those last four are all obviously big long-shots, but I would hesitate to say impossible. Republicans have won both Colorado and Virginia not too long ago, and Trump's appeal with white working class voters means that Pennsylvania isn't entirely a pipe dream. Polls show Trump close in the 2nd district of Maine, and he was not too long ago favored to win New Hampshire. I don't think any of those scenarios would happen today, but we're more than a month from the election and I see possible, if very unlikely paths that could generate the maps above. Trump's doing as good now as he's done since he was in the midst of his convention and while I don't think anyone with any objectivity would call him the favorite at this point, he's managed to pull within striking distance. I don't think he'll be able to hold it, but if I were a Trump supporter, I'd be pretty drat excited right now.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Cheeto isn't taking CO, PA, or VA. lozzle posted:Or ME. The only one of these maps that is even remotely possible is the one where he squeaks by with 270 EV by flipping NH. Colorado: I'll stand by my scenario of Colorado being in play for Trump and that he's got a reasonable chance of winning, though Hillary is still the clear favorite right now. I don't know why folks think Hillary has Colorado on lockdown, her withdrawing of ad dollars aside. Trump's led in a few of the polls within the state, so it's not like Pennsylvania where he's never led in anything and so I just don't think it's a given that Hillary wins there. The polling is all over the place, and while I like that the average has Hillary up, I think the true state of the race there is murkier than folks want to admit. While I admire the certainty that he's not gonna win in Colorado, it went to George W. Bush twice, and Bob Dole before that. They've got one Republican senator currently, and it's got a history of electing Republicans in statewide elections. It wouldn't surprise me to see Gary Johnson have one of his best states here by pulling away some of the soft Democrat votes that have moved to the party recently. It's also one of the few states where Trump is actually trying to do a ground game. I still think Hilary has strong odds of carrying the state, way better odds than Trump, but I don't see it as being a gimme like Pennsylvania. Speaking of... Pennsylvania: This one's a huge long-shot and if I'm gonna play the percentages game, this is something stupidly low like 1-2%. However, that 1-2% chance isn't zero. Trump's path to victory here would be to, as expected, run up the blue-collar white vote and somehow manage to keep losses down in the suburbs and squeak out a 47.5% Trump to 47% Hillary victory. Virginia: gently caress it, I shouldn't have put that one up with Kaine on the ticket. Maybe Hillary gets caught on tape saying that she plans to sell Virginia back to the British or something. Consider this one withdrawn. Maine: Maine flipping wouldn't be likely to happen without New Hampshire flipping as well, and if the race moves towards Trump by the several points it would need to for him to win in New Hampshire, Trump could run up the vote in the 2nd district, along with a stronger than expected showing across the state for Gary Johnson and eek out a victory with 42.5% Trump, 42% Hillary, 15% Johnson. That said, just like Pennsylvania, this is a very low percentage as well. The point is, Trump's really drat close to 270 already and any one of these scenarios could put him over the top. I still think Hillary's gonna win, and I think she's gonna do it with somewhere north of 300 electoral votes, which means that although I'm saying the above scenarios are possible, I do not think any of them are actually going to happen. The point I'm making is that the state of the race today is not the state of the race on election day, and there's things that Trump could do (or luck into) that could make these scenarios happen.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 25, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
DemeaninDemon posted:Yeah I'm in the wrong here sorry The point I was making is made pretty well by Nate Silver today actually, the whole thing's long (and worth going through), so read it [url="https://"http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-where-the-race-stands-heading-into-the-first-debate/"]here[/url], but I want to quote this part: quote:To put it another way, a narrow Trump win would not count as a major polling foul-up if the election were held today: It would be within a reasonable range of disagreement among pollsters. A clear Trump win — or for that matter, a Clinton landslide — would be more of a problem for the polls. First, Hillary has a way, way better ground game than Trump. Obviously, I can't point to any hard numbers proving this, but I think she's gonna have a bigger GOTV edge than any candidate since GOTV became a thing. There's a whole lot of unpersuaded voters, and I think that we'll see them break towards Hillary after the debates. Second, the debates haven't happened yet, and we're currently at the tail end of a long, bad news cycle for Clinton, which she can turn around with a good debate performance. I think she'll win the debates overall, though I'm less bullish about her chances in the first one. I think networks will call it a tie, but Clinton will get a modest polling bump from it. I think she'll be declared a narrow winner in debate two, and see another polling bump, and then she'll blow Trump out in debate three because he'll start throwing haymakers to try to turn it around and he'll miss badly. Third, Hillary is losing slightly more to Johnson and Stein than Trump is losing to them. If the race stays close, I expect that a lot of those low-enthusiasm voters will start to come back. On the flip side of this, the Republicans going third party because of Trump seem way less likely to come back. Another thing I can't prove with hard numbers, though I believe it to be true. Fourth, there's way more undecided voters at this point than in any election in recent memory. I'm thinking that I'd have to go back to 2000 or one of Bubba's wins to find that. I don't care enough to do a deep dive, so if someone wants to prove me wrong on this, go for it. However, the number of undecideds gives Hillary room to grow, and as I said in the first point, she's got a superior ground game. Winning over undecided voters is a grind, and it's one that she's well set up to do. Fifth and finally, she's got a way better fundraising apparatus than Trump. Although Trump is picking it up lately, it wouldn't surprise me to see Hillary outspend Trump 2:1 when all is said and done. That isn't enough to turn it from a tie to a blowout, but if we're playing a game of feet and inches, she's got an edge. TL;DR: Hillary's not in a great spot now, but she's in an okay one, and if I were her, I wouldn't want to trade places with Trump right now. Also, I think Hillary is going to way, way, way outperform her polling, owing to her superior campaign organization and infrastructure. It happened to Obama in 2012 and I think it'll be even more pronounced this year.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 26, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
VAGENDA OF MANOCIDE posted:i never arzied
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2016 03:46
|
|
|
"Abuela, what is best in life?" "To fact-check your enemies. To see them sniffle before you. Hear the lamentations of their trumpkin.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 27, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
fade5 posted:Trump has stiffed and hosed people over decades, and he has zero remorse. Hell, he's proud of it. I know that there's a segment of the population that is gonna vote for him even if he were caught on video tape saying "I can't believe those mongoloids who show up to my rallies think I'm serious about all this Make America Great Again poo poo. I mean, I'm making millions, you know, on merchandise, great merchandise by the way, best in the world, and I'm not giving a penny of that to charity. gently caress veterans. If they elect me, I'll just stay in Trump Tower and gently caress interns 24/7, Bill did it, I mean, aren't I entitled to the same treatment? I mean, who cares if they're boys or girls, it doesn't matter. It's all, you know, the same when they're in my sex dungeon, and my sex dungeon's the best, not one better. Oh and gently caress Alaska and gently caress Sarah Palin. She's a pig and if Putin's up for it, I'll sell him Alaska back just so that bitch has to live in Russia. Those people in the front row at my rallies, the ones wearing the caps, look at them. They're disgusting. If I see another one of those smelly fuckers smile at me and not have all their teeth, I'm gonna have security take them out and beat them senseless. What a bunch of inbred hicks.", but there's no way that his debate comments play any better than Romney's "I love firing people" or "gently caress the 47%" comments. I'm really looking forward to the next debate now. Trump's gonna come out swinging wildly and fall flat on his face. Repeatedly. For 90 minutes. On TV. If I were his campaign team, I'd be doing everything I could to never let him get on TV with Hillary again. He did his best to be nice and it lasted, what, 10, 15 minutes tops? I can't wait to see what the polling does after that shitshow.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
lozzle posted:I would deeply enjoy seeing Trump go full-on "A Face in the Crowd" to his supporters.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2016 22:24
|
|
|
Moon Atari posted:That 'The Choice' special made me realize that Trump's entire life has been dedicated to an elaborate performance art parody of The Fountainhead.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Good Citizen posted:Prepping for my victory lap First, Trump's not going to resign. Withdrawing now wouldn't be any different than losing the election, in terms of his public image and personal ego, and it's not like he's looking to keep the party happy so they'll help him with a comeback in some future election. This is his only shot at politics, one way or the other. Even from a business perspective, what does withdrawing now get him? It's not going to bring around all the people he's alienated, and all it would do is piss off that group that already loves him. If anything, he's strongly incentivized to stay in it until the bitter end, since at least that offers the possibility of Trump/Breitbart/Ailes media ventures after the election, which won't be possible if he alienates that core of his supporters who think that Fox News is too far to the left. On the party side, the closest that Republican rules get to talking about an involuntary removal is to allow them to select a replacement candidate after some undefined event other than death or resignation happens, but it provides no mechanism to do the actual removal. The rule itself is pretty clearly just some broad language to cover a candidate leaving the race under goofy circumstances, like a Woodrow Wilson-style incapacitation. Even if the party apparatchiks all agreed that they do, in fact, have this power that is nowhere in the rules, how long would it take them to not only make the decision, but agree on who will take Trump's place? Obviously Pence would be the frontrunner, and perhaps prohibitive favorite, but even if they do get to him, and get there quickly, there's 30 days until the election. Even a half-day lost figuring this out is essential and irreplaceable time. And that assumes that Trump doesn't get his lawyers to challenge it in court, or get his loyalists to drag out the process... And then there's the most important question, would they really be in a better position if they took him out involuntarily? Would all those hardcore Trumpkins still show up to vote, or would they spend election night on Twitter talking about the dolchstoss instead and giving the party a big middle finger at the polls? If Trump voluntarily stepped down, there's a narrow path that Pence could walk down that would marginally increase the chance of a Republican presidency, but if they take him out, it's hard to see how it doesn't also end up costing them the Senate and quite likely the House at that point. Remember, a modern ground game isn't about winning hearts and minds and getting people to jump to the other side, it's about turning out your base, and it's hard to see any way that taking Trump out involuntarily doesn't depress Republican turnout.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
Despera posted:Whoever toxx'd at Hillary's worst poll numbers wins this thread. Ain't me BluesShaman posted:This is my first post on somethingawful.com. The only toxx I could see on September 18 or 19, which is when Trump was less than a point behind Hillary.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 8, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
Quorum posted:Better. There's supposedly two. One of the same magnitude as pussygate... and one worse. 1) Audio of him admitting to cheating on Melania. 2) Audio of him using a racial slur.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 9, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
I'm trying to imagine what kind of bet would be reasonable at this point. Trump attempts to get physical with someone, probably Hillary, but maybe a moderator, audience member, or security person at the third debate? Trump refuses to concede defeat and advocates armed revolution? Not making those bets, but this election has been so far outside of the norm, I don't even know what is unthinkable at this point.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 13, 2016 21:56
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:Honestly, Bernie bro's who went from supporting a far left candidate to a far right candidate confuse me and I want to understand what would make them go from far left to far right. It's a profound belief that their vote doesn't actually matter, so they're picking the option most likely to make their vote matter. That it would lead to a Brexit-sized case of buyers remorse on November 9 if Trump wins is irrelevant. It's a "gently caress you" vote, but not for Johnson, Stein, or McMuffin.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2016 23:39
|
|
|
Bass Bottles posted:I think a lot of it is also that Trump is (or at least WAS) so vague you can sort of project your own image of what he is on to him. The cold light of history is proving daily just how mistaken I was, and just how bad a Trump presidency would be, but before he went off the deep end publicly, this wasn't such a far-fetched idea.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 14, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Constant Hamprince posted:he announced his candidacy with "mexicans are coming over here and raping our women"
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2016 05:21
|
|
|
I hope that ZDR flips it back from a perma to a regular ban once all of the joke/insincere toxxers jump ship. It's been hilarious to look at the Romney toxx thread and see just how many people toxxed for both Romney and Trump, and I want to see just how many of them go three for three and toxx for Romney, Trump and Ted Cruz (I still think this is gonna happen). Seeing who lurches from big business elitist to populist shitbird to crazyass culture warrior is gonna be great, and we won't get that if they're all on new accounts.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 15, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Falun Bong Refugee posted:Let's say we take the senate like 538 thinks we will. How do we get single payer before 2020? 1) Spends 2016 to 2020 maneuvering to further marginalize the crazyass far-right members of the House, using them as a foil just like Bill did with Newt. 2) Minimizes losses in the House in 2018 and keep the Senate really close, like 50-50 or 51-49. There's basically no way that the Republicans don't control the House from 2018-2020, sorry but it's true. 3) Win control of both chambers in her reelection campaign and undo some of the gerrymandering that happened in 2020 so that there's at least a prayer of keeping the House in midterms. I think that her best play for 2016-2018 is to go for comprehensive immigration reform and climate change legislation. There's room to bring some of the Republican dealmakers over to those, unlike single payer, which would be a straight party-line vote, and it allows her to get a win, even if she doesn't have control of the House. Both those issues have broad public support, so opposition on the Republican side is useful come re-election time. Between those and getting replacements for Ginsberg, Kennedy, and/or Souter through the Senate, that'd be a pretty drat big win for a first term, and would set her up well for a second-term push for real health-care reform.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 16, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
theflyingexecutive posted:so brave. wow Abuela welcomes all to the pre-victory party.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 18, 2016 22:17
|
|
|
Dirt posted:I really want a Bad Hombre tag As do I.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 20, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
bunnyofdoom posted:Alright duders. What should I bring booze wize to the hillary victory party? It starts two hours before polls close.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 30, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
Anyone who has even a passing interest in door knocking really should give it a try. I did it on Friday and Saturday and it was way more fun than I expected. I'm not sure what folks elsewhere are doing, but here in MN it was nothing but talking with people about early voting. We just changed the rules here so early voting is way, way easier now (no need for an excuse, in-person voting, etc.) so it was talking with people pre-screened to be potential Democrat voters telling them how and where they can go to vote. A surprising number of people didn't even know they could, so it feels like you're actually making a difference in getting marginal voters to the polls. I did it for about six hours between the two days in a slightly Republican leaning area and didn't end up talking to a single Trump supporter, and I got to talk with a bunch of people who would, with zero prompting, tell me how terrible Trump is. The campaign folks told me that people would do that, but it still warmed the cockles of my heart when someone solidly in Trump's demographic target just goes off about how terrible he is once they found out that I'm out with the DFL.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2016 22:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 07:22 |
|
|
And barring some kind of miracle, he's gonna be kicked out after this election.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 3, 2016 16:43
|
|