|
bowser posted:Ignoring Merrick Garland for a second and assuming Hillary wins in November...how are the Republicans going to react if she gets 2 - 3 other SCOTUS appointments? This theoretically is an opportunity to dramatically shift the court left but I can't imagine they'll allow that to happen. If Democrats can get a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate (a beautiful dream, but hypothetically possible), it doesn't matter what the Republicans let happen.
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 04:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 13:32 |
|
|
sean10mm posted:USPOL August: The Vindication of Prester Jane by the Narcissist Donald Trump  I do have to admit that when I read Prester's analysis of Trump as a narcissist I didn't quite buy her prediction that he'd have a total breakdown but, well, here we are and I was wrong as gently caress.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
FairGame posted:No. I mean, Trump makes it pretty easy to draw the conclusion that he's literally crazy and deficient. I don't necessarily buy PJ's conclusion that Trump will try to incite violence, but her prediction of a very visible meltdown is looking more likely by the day.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 22:38
|
|
|
My own (not particularly well-reasoned) take is that Trump will use accusations of voter fraud and a "rigged" election as an explanation for why he, a certified winner, lost the election (assuming the apocalypse doesn't come and he doesn't somehow win). Inciting violence or civil war doesn't seem to be his MO. That's not to say that his supporters won't do that all on their own (and that he won't just maybe wink and nod in their direction), but he won't actively incite it. The belief that the only way you can lose is if the opposition cheats is a good way for him to maintain his self-image as a winner while still losing.FairGame posted:I believe I made an avatar bet with PJ that Trump would not call Clinton a oval office/whore/some other extremely offensive woman-specific insult during the debates. Yeah, I also agree that he's not going to call Clinton a gendered insult during the debates. Trump doesn't actually use much vulgar language himself, as far as I can tell. He may well accuse her of some outlandish offenses, call her "Crooked Hillary" over and over, and just generally babble, but I don't think he's going to go on some misogynistic rant.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Sword of Chomsky posted:http://mashable.com/2012/11/06/trump-reacts-to-election/#vxeMfaRdZiqF Wellllll, maybe I'm wrong then. This'll be an interesting ride one way or another.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
Please give us a reverse Reagan/Mondale blowout, please oh please oh please Maybe Bush/Dukakis is more realistic. FairGame posted:Just...I really don't like some of the D&D circlejerks especially when it comes to "the other side is literally crazy and mentally deficient." (Even if in this particular instance, the other side may well be literally crazy and mentally deficient.) Having been kind of a prick myself in the 2008 Obamarama threads I don't really want more of that is all. I wasn't posting on SA yet, but I sure as poo poo couldn't hold back the "holy gently caress Republicans are literally nuts" as soon as Sarah Palin entered the scene. She and Trump both make it very difficult to discuss the opposition as rational actors. Harrow fucked around with this message at 23:00 on Aug 3, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 22:58
|
|
|
So would we say Clinton's still riding the post-convention bump and we should expect that to drop a bit in the near future? Just trying to head off any Arzying at the pass.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 23:49
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I would have liked to have seen a Bernie Sanders vs Donald Trump debate. I'd say looking at the convention speakers would be a good start. If I had to guess, Cory Booker's name will get floated a lot when people start talking about the next Democratic primary, at the very least.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 00:19
|
|
|
bowser posted:How long has the GOP base been so angry? For all the Trump hate I see from liberals there are very few calls to imprison or hang him. I'm thinking probably since Obama was elected in '08, but who knows, in some smaller pockets it probably goes back earlier. vvv That's probably true. I barely remember the Clinton years--I was old enough to remember them, but I was a kid so I wasn't paying much attention to politics beyond lazy Lewinsky jokes--so I have no idea if there was this much anger on the right then. Harrow fucked around with this message at 14:50 on Aug 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 14:48
|
|
|
theflyingorc posted:The NowCast has Hillary taking 360 EVs lol I'm pretty desperate for Trump to get totally buried in EVs. If he loses narrowly, whether he tries to drag it out/sue over fraud/whatever, you can bet his movement is just going to be emboldened. Utterly stomping them won't completely cut it short, but it would make people more gun-shy about voting for the next white nationalist demagogue in the next Republican primary.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 14:52
|
|
|
Radish posted:Yeah some of you youn'uns don't remember the 90s and how much of a hate boner they had for Clinton. The idea that the Clintons were murdering people and should go to jail is not new. Yeah, that much I know. I was like 12 during the Lewinsky scandal, so I knew enough about what was going on and had definitely heard the names Vince Foster and Gennifer Flowers before. Oh, and Whitewater, though I had no idea what all that was about. I grew up in a pretty staunchly Democratic household, though, so I was never exposed to the full rage treatment. Both of my parents hated Hillary even as they voted for Bill, though, for reasons I couldn't quite figure out (and that's still true today).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
Kilroy posted:Nah they'll just do the "not a true conservative" shtick and double down in 2020 - they are literally too god damned old to know how to do anything else. The only question is if enough of them will be left by 2020 to elect David Duke as the GOP nominee. So, back to the Trump-style demagoguery instead of the old Tea Party, Cruz-style hyperconservative? My guess was that they'd fall back on the Cruz side of things (not necessarily Cruz himself, but a more-conservative-than-thou type like him). Then again, there are plenty of Trump voters who'll still be around and hungry for another Trump. What are the odds the RNC tries to implement superdelegates? Could Trump be the Republicans' McGovern?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
zoux posted:Actually he's been whining that they are on the same night as football games and people are wondering if he's already laying the groundwork for pulling out of them. So here's a fun game to play: Will it be better for Trump's polls if he just chickens out of the debates, or if he goes on stage and does basically what he's been doing all week? Like, both are probably bad, but which is worse?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
DolphinCop posted:does five thirty eight dot com do a senate forecast? i like their aggregate model because their results agree with my preconceived notions about how the election should be going and i'd like to know what the exact prospects for senate control are Well, Dems are poised to pick up a seat here in Wisconsin if Feingold keeps dancing all over Johnson in the polls.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:Personally, I'm just disappointed that Donald Trump isn't quite bad enough to permanently sink Paul Ryan, and that Scott Walker isn't a) up for reelection and b) tanking in the polls for being even vaguely associated with Trump. I'm really aching for Walker to lose reelection in 2018. The celebrations around Madison would be deafening.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 5, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
TheBigAristotle posted:Visiting family for the weekend, which is the only time of year I watch cable tv and surf aimlessly anymore, and caught Anthony Bourdain comparing Putin to Trump on a 2014 episode of Parts Unknown. I watched that one recently, too. Pretty retroactively heavy episode.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
emdash posted:https://twitter.com/MAGA_Mack/status/762499582320254976 Throw away evidence that can actually predict anything and then how does Hillary look? 
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 14:46
|
|
|
Arrgytehpirate posted:If a state like GA or AZ flip is it still highly unlikely to retake the house and senate? I'd say retaking the Senate is realistic even without GA or AZ flipping, though difficult. Retaking the House just isn't realistic for a while, even with Trump dragging everyone down.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 16:01
|
|
|
Violator posted:With the election heating up, anyone have any good movie suggestions? The Ides of March (2011) with George Clooney has a lot of steamy election intrigue and backstabbing. Any other good political thrillers in that ilk? I think I'm going to queue up All the President's Men next. I'm itching to rewatch No Country for Old Men myself. Something about that movie's beautiful hopelessness seems about right this year.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 16:47
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/justinjm1/status/762700873340518401
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Petr posted:Why does it actually matter what supreme court justices Clinton nominates? Republicans have no incentive to allow any of them through. It matters if Democrats can take a Senate majority. The House doesn't confirm Supreme Court nominees, only the Senate does, and the Senate is a much more realistic goal than the House.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 8, 2016 20:19
|
|
|
I wish I could see his face if Clinton wins with a Democrat majority Senate and he and the other Republicans are suddenly faced with either having to confirm Garland (just publicly wallowing in hypocrisy) or take their chances with a Clinton pick.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
So I haven't paid that much attention to cable news coverage of the election recently. What's the media reaction been to Trump's new "on-message" style, like his Detroit speech? Is it the big turning point for Trump, or are people finally remembering that he's Donald Trump?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
iospace posted:The on-message style? Not seeing much about it. I am, however, seeing a lot of places bash the actual "plan". That's what I hoped for: looking past the fact that he resisted making GBS threads himself in public and focusing on how the content of his speech was bullshit.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
Is "good" gerrymandering really gerrymandering at all? I thought the difference between normal redistricting and gerrymandering was whether it was done so that constituencies make sense or to unnaturally benefit one party.
Harrow fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Aug 9, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
Best guess as to whether Paul Ryan takes this golden opportunity to un-endorse Trump, or is he in this for the long haul?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 22:44
|
|
|
Lotka Volterra posted:Yet to be confirmed, but: it looks like the pivot is back on Boy, that "Trump was talking about voting, not shooting" defense didn't last long, did it?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
MattD1zzl3 posted:This 2nd amendment gaffe is a great chance to point out something thats been bugging me all election. What trump says, how i take it, and how its taken. Source your quotes
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 23:09
|
|
|
drilldo squirt posted:Aren't there some legal issues with a presidential candidate telling people to shoot his rival? He's got just enough plausible deniability in that quote that I don't think any legal charges could possibly stick, but I'm hoping at least this scares off another handful of his potential voters if nothing else.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 23:12
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:So that murder claim from Assange? Good god the comments on this video are infuriating.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 04:31
|
|
|
theblackw0lf posted:Sigh Again? Is there some "Clinton is bad on animal rights" thing I'm not aware of? Or are they just targeting her because they think more left-leaning audiences are more likely to listen, whereas they'd just get beaten up at a Trump rally?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
zoux posted:PETA is more about exposure than any kind of cohesive, directed or effective activist campaign. They are Dicks Out For Harambe incarnate. I was going to follow this up by asking how dumb someone has to be to rush the stage at a major presidential candidate's speech after what Trump said yesterday, and then I realized the answer was "about as dumb as you'd have to be to rush the stage at a major presidential candidate's speech in the first place." seiferguy posted:It's probably the same as the Black Lives Matter activists protesting Bernie's speech in Seattle. It's readily available, and easy exposure. The amount of whitesplaining of "Why protest Bernie's rally? He's the best hope for black people!" was hilarious. I was one of those whitesplainers.  I was pretty gung-ho on Bernie last year and it wasn't until I actually started listening to what black people were saying that I realized how stupid my "but Bernie marched with Dr. King!" arguments were. If nothing else, being one of the Bernie supporters who ducked out before it turned into a diehard Bernout shitshow taught me a lot about just loving listening when people of color talk about issues facing them.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 21:11
|
|
|
zoux posted:https://twitter.com/reidepstein/status/763465386314477568?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw Isn't it always? Swing state with a pretty hefty pile of electoral votes, and it's one of the ones that's still not a complete lost cause for Trump. So it's important. Florida's probably going to overshadow Ohio this time, though, given the math that basically says Trump can't win without it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
zoux posted:Yeah it is which is why it's mind boggling how antagonistic the Trump campaign is being towards its very popular governor who also happens to have won the state primary. I saw a bunch of pics from the OH delegation to the RNC, they did not look like happy campers. I think Trump thinks he can just bowl Kasich over. If he's big enough and strong enough, he can make Kasich look weak and win Ohio because everyone will be in starry-eyed awe at Trump's strength. It ain't gonna work. I'm from Ohio and while my hometown, a suburb of Cleveland that's deep, deep blue, doesn't like Kasich very much, he's still decently popular statewide. For as blue as areas around Cleveland and Columbus are, there's a whole lot of wide-open red land in Ohio and they're more Kasich than Trump. Picking a fight with Kasich isn't going to win Trump votes.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 21:31
|
|
|
Sundae posted:"He might be a worthless rear end in a top hat, but he's our worthless rear end in a top hat" is a fairly common sentiment to see pretty much everywhere. He might be fair game to criticize locally, but don't you outsiders dare talk poo poo about (insert lovely thing/person here). So, basically the way Clevelanders talk about Cleveland.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Shimrra Jamaane posted:There were plenty of people on this very forum and probably in this very thread who believed during the primaries that Trump was going to be able to ride his success into the general election because "the rules don't apply to him so we have no idea what might happen." Turns out they do apply to him and always did you idiots. It's not so much that the rules of electoral reality don't apply to Trump, but that the media really doesn't want those rules to apply (consciously or not). If he can avoid publicly making GBS threads himself for 24 straight hours, much of the media feels compelled to take him seriously. If he were to stay on message for a whole week, you better believe cable news pundits and anchors not named Rachel Maddow or Chris Hayes will be treating him like a normal candidate whose ideas have just as much merit as Clinton's. Of course, he's not going to stay on message for a whole week, so we don't really have to worry about that ever happening. And he's still not going to win even if it did.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 16:38
|
|
|
sean10mm posted:I just heard NPR talk about his economic speech seriously this morning. Was it Cokie Roberts? She's all about taking Trump seriously because journalists shouldn't have public political opinions or something.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 11, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
What's this "monster vote" narrative floating around now? The idea that Trump is going to turn out record numbers of first-time voters, the kind of people pollsters don't poll because they're not "likely voters," which explains the big rallies vs. underperforming polls. Is "monster vote" a term that's been around for a while or is this some new term the poll unskewers came up with?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 14, 2016 05:05
|
|
|
TheBigAristotle posted:Main headline on Drudge: That's a hell of a pillow, to be able to prop her up from so far away!
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 10, 2024 13:32 |
|
|
Lots of my "voting for Clinton but not too happy about it" friends are pretty worried about Ken Salazar's appointment as her transition chief due to his pro-fracking (and anti-any sort of fracking regulation) positions. I mostly agree that it's a pretty big misstep but I'm wondering a) how much it matters and b) what people who are generally pro-Clinton can/should do about it.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2016 16:40
|
|