2016 Presidential Horse Race

[ACamp1900]

I do find it fascinating that Trump’s supporters simply don’t care that he lies all the time. Literally makes shit up at his speeches, pulls numbers out of thin air, openly lies through his teeth, and his supporters (and now most of the Republican party) simply do not care. The media will call him out on it, they will contact his campaign for a comment (which they always decline – funny because it seems they never shut up), and then it goes away. Never in history have we seen anything like this.

Watching Trump and Hillary in this election and the insanity around it is like living in an episode of the Simpsons.

Agreed for the most part... I did like that cartoon though... lol

 

[Irish#1]

I'm starting to think Trump has absolutely no interest in actually being President, but he absolutely wants to win the election. A Newt Gingrich shadow regime wouldn't be the worst thing, I guess...

I made this point a while back. I think he just wants to win the election. I don't think he wants to live in the White House and attend state dinners and all that.

Agree. I also posted earlier that I thought his real intent here might be to shake up both parties and force them to reevaluate the status quo. Get in line more with what the voters want out of a government.

 

[ACamp1900]

I'm starting to think Trump has absolutely no interest in actually being President, but he absolutely wants to win the election. A Newt Gingrich shadow regime wouldn't be the worst thing, I guess...

I mean, it's not like we haven't seen a dynamic like this happen before (right dafaq now)....

 

[wizards8507]

Commentary: Why #NeverTrump failed - CBS News

I honestly can't believe how ignorant the political media is on this subject. They keep telling us over and over again that the (Trump) wing of the Republican Party was able to overcome the (Conservative + Establishment) wing of the Republican Party, and that's complete garbage. The reason #NeverTrump failed is because there is no such thing as the (Conservative + Establishment) wing of the Republican Party. The establishment aren't particularly conservative and the conservatives hate the establishment. Even when it got down to a two-man race, Trump was able to triangulate the party because the establishment and the conservatives never came together.

 

[Irish#1]

I do find it fascinating that Trump’s supporters simply don’t care that he lies all the time. Literally makes shit up at his speeches, pulls numbers out of thin air, openly lies through his teeth, and his supporters (and now most of the Republican party) simply do not care. The media will call him out on it, they will contact his campaign for a comment (which they always decline – funny because it seems they never shut up), and then it goes away. Never in history have we seen anything like this.

Watching Trump and Hillary in this election and the insanity around it is like living in an episode of the Simpsons.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. I think people like him for three reasons. 1. Regardless of his ties and contributions, he's not a true politician in the eyes of the public. 2. Voters like that he speaks his mind and isn't afraid to face the PC police. He's saying what a lot of people think, but won't say. 3. While we have quite a few people on this forum that look deeply into politics and dissect it left and right, there is a very large group of voters (D&R) that really don't care and simply wait for election day to cast their vote.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Clinton's numbers have gotten *bad* among Bernie Sanders supporters. 60% have an unfavorable view of her. <a href="https://t.co/qBPua9pS3a">https://t.co/qBPua9pS3a</a></p>— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) <a href="https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/733332455340572672">May 19, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">In a matchup against Trump, 55% of Sanders voters support Clinton, 15% Trump. That leaves a big 30% chunk undecided or voting for "other".</p>— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) <a href="https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/733333059379073024">May 19, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

 

[phgreek]

I can't be the only one who thinks the "Trump is literally Hitler" narrative pushed by both liberals and a lot of the media has only helped him.....

exactly...if you are not in New York or California...chances are, anything the media does is useless because they are viewed as the problem too.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

This is brilliant. I will say that I don't view Trump's problem's as molehills at all, but that is a great cartoon otherwise.

I do find it fascinating that Trump’s supporters simply don’t care that he lies all the time. Literally makes shit up at his speeches, pulls numbers out of thin air, openly lies through his teeth, and his supporters (and now most of the Republican party) simply do not care. The media will call him out on it, they will contact his campaign for a comment (which they always decline – funny because it seems they never shut up), and then it goes away. Never in history have we seen anything like this.

Watching Trump and Hillary in this election and the insanity around it is like living in an episode of the Simpsons.

Except the mountains in the background have been talked to death by the media. There have been 8 Benghazi investigations. Bernie got "sick and tired" of discussing her "damn emails." They haven't been ignored.

 

[GATTACA!]

Rasmussen Latest: Trump Beating Hillary by 5 points nationally

Trump now gets 76% of the Republican vote, while Clinton has 72% Democratic support. Thirteen percent (13%) of Democrats prefer Trump, while nine percent (9%) of GOP voters favor Clinton. Among voters not affiliated with either major party, Trump leads 41% to 28%, but 31% of these voters either like another candidate or are undecided.

Im sure Hillary will get the same type of bump....right.....right guys??

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Seems most appropriate post to have after that WAPO article. PC culture makes wild claims in response to Trumps wild anti-PC ways.

I've talked about this before, but the WAPO is completely biased. Look no further than Jeff Bazos connection to Hillary and it will all make sense. Their agenda was to destroy Bernie from the beginning and soon it will be to destroy Trump. If you can't stand pro-HRC/pro-establishment slant, you may want to avoid WAPO. It's pure garbage most of the time.

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Clinton's numbers have gotten *bad* among Bernie Sanders supporters. 60% have an unfavorable view of her. <a href="https://t.co/qBPua9pS3a">https://t.co/qBPua9pS3a</a></p>— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) <a href="https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/733332455340572672">May 19, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">In a matchup against Trump, 55% of Sanders voters support Clinton, 15% Trump. That leaves a big 30% chunk undecided or voting for "other".</p>— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) <a href="https://twitter.com/NateSilver538/status/733333059379073024">May 19, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

I'm torn on this subject (still). Earlier posts pegged me as #BernieorBust. In some ways, I still am. HRC represents everything that Sanders is fighting against. I think establishment Dems are wildly underestimating this. They keep hammering Bernie to drop out, get behind Hillary, and toe the party line....all while forgetting that (even though Bernie is #NeverTrump) he can't stand what the HRCs of the world have done to our politics. The Clinton campaign has been wildly condescending this entire process. The more they tell Bernie to know your role, the more it's going to piss off his supporters. Hillary needs Bernie's supporters more than she knows and she's completely alienating them. I'm already sick and tired of the "If she loses, it'll be Bernie's fault" banter. No, if Hillary loses, it's because she's a horrible, lying, scandalous, arrogant, establishment politician that the majority of Americans are sick and tired of seeing in the WH.

With all that said, I'm on record as saying I will not vote for her come November. But at this point, I've moved to 50/50 on plugging my nose and voting for her just because I'm terrified of a Trump presidency. We'll see how the next 5 or 6 months go.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Rasmussen Latest: Trump Beating Hillary by 5 points nationally

Im sure Hillary will get the same type of bump....right.....right guys??

Probably.

They say that 15% preferred someone else. Given that all of the Republicans have dropped out of the race, it's likely that most have coalesced around Trump already. I'd wager that a large portion of the 15% are Sanders voters, many of whom will vote for Hillary. She's listed as having 72% of the Democratic support. I think that's possibly evidence of the point I'm making.

But, of course, it's just speculation.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Probably.

They say that 15% preferred someone else. Given that all of the Republicans have dropped out of the race, it's likely that most have coalesced around Trump already. I'd wager that a large portion of the 15% are Sanders voters, many of whom will vote for Hillary. She's listed as having 72% of the Democratic support. I think that's possibly evidence of the point I'm making.

But, of course, it's just speculation.

Don't count on that. See Whiskey's link to Nate Sliver's numbers. Also, TYT has a report Jordan Chariton who has been going around to every state during their primary, basically doing his own polling of small crowds who are Bernie or bust. He said that his number started really low, ,25%. But as this has gone on, it's 50%+, and as much as 75% in some cases. When Nate Silvers posts that 60% of Bernie supporters have an unfavorable view of HRC, it lines up perfectly with Jordan's self-polling of Bernie or Bust. You can't ignore that.

 

[irishfan]

She's going to get a bump. He's still doing better head-to-head than right now than just about anyone expected.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Don't count on that. See Whiskey's link to Nate Sliver's numbers. Also, TYT has a report Jordan Chariton who has been going around to every state during their primary, basically doing his own polling of small crowds who are Bernie or bust. He said that his number started really low, ,25%. But as this has gone on, it's 50%+, and as much as 75% in some cases. When Nate Silvers posts that 60% of Bernie supporters have an unfavorable view of HRC, it lines up perfectly with Jordan's self-polling of Bernie or Bust. You can't ignore that.

Not ignoring it. I just think that some of the #neverhillary will flip once they realize the alternative. Not all of them, of course. It's very polarized right now. But you just said that you're reconsidering because of how awful Trump would be. I think there are others who will do the same. Again, I'm just speculating. Sanders supporters have the right to play the thing out, as Hillary has said several times. He'll affect the platform, I'm certain.

 

[BleedBlueGold]

Not ignoring it. I just think that some of the #neverhillary will flip once they realize the alternative. Not all of them, of course. It's very polarized right now. But you just said that you're reconsidering because of how awful Trump would be. I think there are others who will do the same. Again, I'm just speculating. Sanders supporters have the right to play the thing out, as Hillary has said several times. He'll affect the platform, I'm certain.

They've known the alternative for a while now. But you're right, I'm a perfect example of someone who is coming around (although I'm not 100% yet).

He'll definitely affect her platform. He kind of already has in a way, getting her to discuss more affordable healthcare, more affordable college, and higher minimum wage. The question is whether or not you trust her. Her voting record comparing to her pandering don't always align.

 

[phgreek]

Wouldn't this only be true if he bypassed Congress and legislated via the govt regulation bureaucracies, executive orders, & with a pen and a phone?

Agree...however

Trump is indeed more of a threat because he cannot be controlled with money, or promises of it, and thus he isn't maintained/maintainable by ideological douche bags with money. As such he has no pressure points or real loyalties to party, donor, industry, etc.

However, on the flip side, for all the same reasons, one must recognize his potential benefit in equal measure....if you are being honest. He could force the government to operate more like it was designed. It would be odd to actually see someone worse than what we've seen recently, so I'm seeing the risk vs. reward a little differently than the author.

Folks can hang Trump on the Republicans...and they earned some of the blame for being limp dick pussies lacking the will to stand by their convictions and campaign promises. But in all seriousness...if Hillary gets what is coming to her, our choices are, a self avowed socialist or a potential fascist.

Just remember...We didn't get here IN SPITE OF real sound, fair, honest decision making and governance from Democrats.

 

[RDU Irish]

Clinton will poll to see the two or three things that are top issues for Bernie supports and pander hard to it in her acceptance with zero intention of pursuing any of it. Then it won't matter b/c she can't do anything about the REAL reason they don't support her - she epitomizes that which they hate most about politics. It won't just be about what percent support Trump but how many stay home.

 

[ND NYC]

is there any site that shows the entire number of votes cast (regardless of candidate who got them) for each states primaries?
curious on the overall D vs R totals so far...

 

[pkt77242]

High Primary Turnouts: Any Clues for the Fall? - Rasmussen Reports™

Halfway down is a chart showing primaries through May 10th with 26.1 million Republican and 22.1 million Democratic votes so far in primaries.

 

[Cali_domer]

 

[connor_in]

Clinton will poll to see the two or three things that are top issues for Bernie supports and pander hard to it in her acceptance with zero intention of pursuing any of it. Then it won't matter b/c she can't do anything about the REAL reason they don't support her - she epitomizes that which they hate most about politics. It won't just be about what percent support Trump but how many stay home.

Well...to be honest, I have heard that she "ain't no ways trred"

 

[TheOneWhoKnocks]

Was it also the first transgender?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Was it also the first transgender?

huh?

 

[ACamp1900]

Was it also the first transgender?

It said nothing about her being a Flyers fan.................

 

[Cali_domer]

I'm confused by that one.... I never venture to far in this thread but thought that was amusing.

 

[BGIF]

Mr. President, we need a new DNC chair (Opinion) - CNN.com

By Jonathon Tasani

(CNN)The President of the United States has a phone call to make.

He needs to call Debbie Wasserman Schultz and request that for the good of Democratic Party unity and to best Donald Trump in November, she step aside.

It is clear that the Democratic Party is headed for a tumultuous convention, one in which advocates for two very different visions of what the party should stand for will wrestle to try to shape its platform -- not to mention nominate our standard bearer. In this process, we will need to look up to the podium to see a leader who can rise above the fray to inspire confidence on both sides. Wasserman Schultz does not meet that standard.

As an individual, Wasserman Schultz has every right to support a candidate. However, the position of Democratic National Committee chair requires resolute neutrality, both in perception and in practice. Yet at major milestones in the primary race, Wasserman Schultz's actions have been anything but neutral -- to the extreme detriment of the party.

Let's start with the debate schedule. You would think that, given the Republicans' chaotic scrum of sniping candidates, the DNC chair would gleefully schedule a large number of debates to reach the widest audience with essentially free promotion of a slate of thoughtful candidates. Instead, Wasserman Schultz, without seeking broad input from her vice chairs, limited the number of debates to six. Even though three were later added, by contrast, the party had 15 primary debates in 2004 and 25 debates in 2008.

There was an obvious appetite among voters to hear from the Democratic candidates. Despite being held on the night of a crucial Major League Baseball playoff game, the first debate, on CNN, averaged 15.8 million total viewers

, the sixth-biggest nonsports cable telecast in history, with the 25-54 demographic averaging 5 million viewers -- the most ever for a Democratic debate.

So why have so few debates? It's important to note that, when the campaign began, no one had assumed the race would boil down to a head-to-head matchup between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. So, by putting her finger on the scale and scheduling fewer debates, Wasserman Schultz was trying to limit the exposure of anyone opposing Clinton, her favored candidate.

Then, in December, the party's data files were breached, and a staffer of the Sanders campaign accessed Clinton campaign data files. The Sanders campaign immediately terminated the staffer and reiterated to the DNC that its data vendor's firewall security was deeply flawed. Rather than bring the two campaigns together for a review of security, Wasserman Schultz immediately blocked the Sanders campaign's access to its own data, crippling efforts to reach voters at a key moment in the race.

And now, the DNC chair has again poisoned the well. Immediately after the Nevada state convention, Wasserman Schultz went on national television, accusing

the Sanders campaign of fomenting "violence" at the event. There was no violence; rather, there was a wild outbreak of people exercising their First Amendment rights by shouting and waving signs. An unbiased chair would have asked for a full report of the convention events -- which would have included looking at the core issue of whether 64 of Sanders' delegates were improperly denied their vote -- before making this kind of slanderous statement.

Taken together, these incidents underscore the bottom line that Wasserman Schultz has squandered the most important asset a DNC chair must have: trust. She has abused the trust of the campaigns and is a significant contributor to the feeling among many Sanders supporters -- whom we need in November to defeat Trump -- that the DNC has not played fair. And because a leader reflects on her colleagues, her behavior has also tarred other very good DNC activists and leaders.

Not to mention: Wasserman Schultz has also been a failure leading Democrats in elections. With the exception of the White House, Democrats are now weaker at every level during her tenure. Republicans control the House of Representatives, with the biggest GOP caucus since 1947 when Harry Truman was President; we've lost a dozen U.S. Senate seats, and Republicans now control 67 state legislative chambers, with 24 states under full Republican control.

A number of strong leaders stand ready to replace Wasserman Schultz without disruption. I believe that any of the current vice chairs -- R.T. Rybak, Maria Elena Durazo, Donna Brazile or Raymond Buckley -- could be steadfastly fair and serve in the interim to chair the convention, alone or as co-chairs. And theirs would be a short service since, by tradition, the party's nominee can install a DNC chair of his or her choosing.

We can't wait to make this change. We need a strong and fair DNC leader who will put the party in the best position to defeat Donald Trump and the Republican Party.

Mr. President, make the call.

 

[GATTACA!]

Mr. President, we need a new DNC chair (Opinion) - CNN.com

By Jonathon Tasani

Can't fault Obama on this one, he tried.

When [Wasserman Schultz] sensed Obama was considering replacing her as chair in 2013, she began to line up supporters to suggest the move was both anti-woman and anti-Semitic.

Absolutely pathetic. Somehow I might actually hate her more than HRC.

 

[phgreek]

Can't fault Obama on this one, he tried.



Absolutely pathetic. Somehow I might actually hate her more than HRC.

whats Obama's beef with DWS??? The only thing I can figure is her lies are too obvious???

I think DWS is classless and pure evil. I see DWS and HRC as evil equivalents, but DWS, in her role (s) can't do much damage, so in the last year or so, I've tried to not see, hear, and certainly not waste time evaluating things she says...

 

[Irish#1]

Clinton will poll to see the two or three things that are top issues for Bernie supports and pander hard to it in her acceptance with zero intention of pursuing any of it. Then it won't matter b/c she can't do anything about the REAL reason they don't support her - she epitomizes that which they hate most about politics. It won't just be about what percent support Trump but how many stay home.

Q: How can you tell when HRC is lying?
A: Her lips are moving.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Q: How can you tell when HRC is lying?
A: Her lips are moving.

Insert the name of most politicians here. This is not exclusive to her.

On another (but related) note, did you see that Trump is now saying that he doesn't want to punish women who get abortions? He meant that they would be punishing themselves. His words don't mean anything.