2016 US Election


Off-Topic Discussions

1,801 to 1,850 of 7,079 << first < prev | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rednal wrote:
Trump says the media won't report on facts.
Then why is he on the news so often?

Because he lies. The media reports his lies.

See? It all fits.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rednal wrote:
Trump says the media won't report on facts.
Then why is he on the news so often?

Those two statements seem complimentary, not contradictory.


thejeff wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rednal wrote:
Trump says the media won't report on facts.
Then why is he on the news so often?

Because he lies. The media reports his lies.

See? It all fits.

Semi-seriously,.... facts are generally uncontroversial. If a presidential candidate said that the United States' longest land border is with Canada, no one would bother to report it. If a presidential candidate said that the United States' longest land border is with New Zealand, the press would -- quite justifiably -- have a field day.

Trump's M.O. is to court controversy, because controversy is what generates headlines. So it's not really surprising that he's more willing to say things that are untrue because they make good sound bites than he is to stick to, you know, uncontroversial things that won't get retweeted.


It is also part of "controlling the message", that has been the Right's media strategy for years now. Rush/Hanity/O'Reily/Coulture/ say some stupid ignorant hateful garbage, and the media talk about it for a day or two. Politicians on the right backtrack a little, and the Left is outraged. But the Right gets to have their message be the topic of discussion.

Trump has figured out how to be both the guy who says the crazy s%#~, and the politician who benefits.

Maybe someday the Left and media will figure it out and stop falling for it, but it has been going on for years now.


Fergie wrote:

It is also part of "controlling the message", that has been the Right's media strategy for years now. Rush/Hanity/O'Reily/Coulture/ say some stupid ignorant hateful garbage, and the media talk about it for a day or two. Politicians on the right backtrack a little, and the Left is outraged. But the Right gets to have their message be the topic of discussion.

Trump has figured out how to be both the guy who says the crazy s@~$, and the politician who benefits.

Maybe someday the Left and media will figure it out and stop falling for it, but it has been going on for years now.

Well, it's not entirely clear he's actually benefiting. I mean, it won him the primary certainly and he's getting his message to be the topic of discussion.

But it's not like his poll numbers go up when he talks crazy racist crap. At least some of that crazy s%*+ has backfired on him. It's been when he backs off and pretends to look a little more presidential that his numbers start to creep up a little.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

RE: Latinos For Trump founder says "if we don't do something about immigration, we'll have taco trucks on every corner"

Hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha hahahahaha.

It should also be noted, illegal immigration from latin countries has gone down during the Obama administration.

Dark Archive

5 people marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
RE: Latinos For Trump founder says "if we don't do something about immigration, we'll have taco trucks on every corner"

Mmmm. Now I want tacos. What was the problem with this?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Apparently Bush the Lesser was right to be worried when he malapropped: "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" Apparently at least some Trump spokespeople didn't learn:

1) how to build a convincing analogy,
b) taco trucks provide delicious food at a convenient location for affordable prices... and this is a good thing, and
Π) drinking from the Trump Font of Cognitive Dissonance causes brain damage.

Edit: It is also equally plausible that Trump's Latino spokesfolk have been Ludovico technique'd with Trump Tower taco bowls.

Sovereign Court

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Card Game, Companion, Lost Omens, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

NO ONE DO ANYTHING ABOUT IMMIGRATION

I want tacos.


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:

Apparently Bush the Lesser was right to be worried when he malapropped: "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?" Apparently at least some Trump spokespeople didn't learn:

1) how to build a convincing analogy,
b) taco trucks provide delicious food at a convenient location for affordable prices... and this is a good thing, and
Π) drinking from the Trump Font of Cognitive Dissonance causes brain damage.

Edit: It is also equally plausible that Trump's Latino spokesfolk have been Ludovico technique'd with Trump Tower taco bowls.

I had assumed that Ludovico technique was mandatory during Make America Great Again campaign employee orientation, regardless of ethnic origin.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

*Checks*

...Huh. The Washington Post did some estimates, and guess there are about three million intersections in the US to put food trucks on. In the same article, there are... about three million food trucks in operation.

So, uh, this horrid reality of delicious, easily accessible Mexican food isn't a strange future, but basically what the world looks like now. XD

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
RE: Latinos For Trump founder says "if we don't do something about immigration, we'll have taco trucks on every corner"
Mmmm. Now I want tacos. What was the problem with this?

Actually, scratch that, I had chimichangas last night, and nav rattan shahi korma (sadly not Sarah Shahi Korma...) for lunch yesterday. Today I want falafel and taboule. Do they have falafel trucks?

Or General Tso's chicken. Hmm. So many delicious immigrants.


This is a fun read: [Vox] "Donald Trump volunteers are signing a lifelong contract never to criticize him"


It tells you a lot about someone when the first thing someone wants you to do when you're offering to help them is to agree to never, ever say anything bad about them. ...Also, blatantly illegal clauses are fun. I wonder if those are enough to invalidate the whole thing? Probably not, but I'd like to think so. "Trump Volunteers Tell All" after the election could be interesting.


As a hater of Gov. Skeletor's Rick Scott's regime, I enjoyed this one: [WaPo] "Trump pays IRS a penalty for his foundation violating rules with gift to aid Florida attorney general"

Too bad this won't likely even make the evening news beyond a single 10 to 15 second blip (if that). Too bad it will do nothing to tar Trump's or Pam Bondi's political careers.


Set wrote:

Hmm. So many delicious immigrants.

I'm betting that when the zombie hordes shamble forth they will agree. ;)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:

As a hater of Gov. Skeletor's Rick Scott's regime, I enjoyed this one: [WaPo] "Trump pays IRS a penalty for his foundation violating rules with gift to aid Florida attorney general"

Too bad this won't likely even make the evening news beyond a single 10 to 15 second blip (if that). Too bad it will do nothing to tar Trump's or Pam Bondi's political careers.

Forget that!

Some Clinton Foundation people asked Huma Abedin to help them get diplomatic passports!

Which they were properly refused, but it still shows how dirty the Clinton foundation is. </snark>

Projection again. Not even false equivalency. Outright "I'm using my foundation as a tax dodge & slush fund for political bribery so that must be what Clinton's doing as well."


Set wrote:
Set wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
RE: Latinos For Trump founder says "if we don't do something about immigration, we'll have taco trucks on every corner"
Mmmm. Now I want tacos. What was the problem with this?

Actually, scratch that, I had chimichangas last night, and nav rattan shahi korma (sadly not Sarah Shahi Korma...) for lunch yesterday. Today I want falafel and taboule. Do they have falafel trucks?

Or General Tso's chicken. Hmm. So many delicious immigrants.

Saw plenty of Falafel trucks in Washington D.C...


5 people marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:

As a hater of Gov. Skeletor's Rick Scott's regime, I enjoyed this one: [WaPo] "Trump pays IRS a penalty for his foundation violating rules with gift to aid Florida attorney general"

Too bad this won't likely even make the evening news beyond a single 10 to 15 second blip (if that). Too bad it will do nothing to tar Trump's or Pam Bondi's political careers.

Forget that!

Some Clinton Foundation people asked Huma Abedin to help them get diplomatic passports!

Which they were properly refused, but it still shows how dirty the Clinton foundation is. </snark>

Projection again. Not even false equivalency. Outright "I'm using my foundation as a tax dodge & slush fund for political bribery so that must be what Clinton's doing as well."

So to recap:

  • Bush the Lesser raised millions for his personal George W. Bush Foundation during his Presidency.... that's apparently all fine and dandy, with no appearance of impropriety.

  • Colin Powell's wife, Alma Johnson, ran his America's Promise foundation during his term as Secretary of State.... fine and dandy, no impropriety.

  • George Bush, Sr had his Points of Light Foundation during his Presidency.... fine and dandy, no impropriety.

  • St. Raygun raised millions for his Presidential Library and immediately after his Presidency gave speeches for millions.... fine and dandy, no impropriety.

But no, the Repubs and mainstream media happily push the the Clinton Foundation as "clearly pay-for-play."

Tell me again how the mainstream media has a liberal bias.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Scott Betts wrote:
Rednal wrote:
Aside from the Trump campaign's releases - including an obviously false assessment of Trump's own health

For those who haven't seen it, I really strongly encourage you to read the assessment in question, and a doctor's analysis of its contents. You can find them both here.

I mean, daaaaaaaaaamn.

Perhaps you would find Trump's medical letter more convincing if read by a doctor with more gravitas, such as Dr. John A. Zoidberg? (3 parts)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Rednal wrote:
Aside from the Trump campaign's releases - including an obviously false assessment of Trump's own health

For those who haven't seen it, I really strongly encourage you to read the assessment in question, and a doctor's analysis of its contents. You can find them both here.

I mean, daaaaaaaaaamn.

Perhaps you would find Trump's medical letter more convincing if read by a doctor with more gravitas, such as Dr. John A. Zoidberg? (3 parts)

Beautiful.


Rednal wrote:
In a move that probably won't help Republicans, the Supreme Court declined to reinstate parts of North Carolina's new Voter ID law, in a 4-4 split that upheld a lower court's ruling.

They got a consolation prize. Polls indicate that a major part of the Democrats voting for Clinton will be voting Republican down ticket while the Republican pollsters will be keeping to the party. If Clinton does win the election, it's not likely that she's going to be bringing that many Democrats with her.

News of the demise of the GOP has been severely exaggerated.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sadly, that suggests at least two more years of excessive gridlock. I... don't feel like Republicans in Congress have any interest in compromising with a Democrat president.


Rednal wrote:
Sadly, that suggests at least two more years of excessive gridlock. I... don't feel like Republicans in Congress have any interest in compromising with a Democrat president.

You know i'd rather walk than crash and burn but that's just me.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sadly, gridlock 'til we drive off the fiscal cliff seems to be the new normal.


Rednal wrote:
Sadly, that suggests at least two more years of excessive gridlock. I... don't feel like Republicans in Congress have any interest in compromising with a Democrat president.

I imagine that Mitch is preparing his "one term only" speech for Clinton now. We may very well see a split court for another four years unless another Justice kicks off, or retires. Or Trump actually wins, which is not beyond probability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Rednal wrote:
Aside from the Trump campaign's releases - including an obviously false assessment of Trump's own health

For those who haven't seen it, I really strongly encourage you to read the assessment in question, and a doctor's analysis of its contents. You can find them both here.

I mean, daaaaaaaaaamn.

Perhaps you would find Trump's medical letter more convincing if read by a doctor with more gravitas, such as Dr. John A. Zoidberg? (3 parts)

They messed it up.

Zoidberg says "To whom it may concern", but the letter says "to whom my concern."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Rednal wrote:
In a move that probably won't help Republicans, the Supreme Court declined to reinstate parts of North Carolina's new Voter ID law, in a 4-4 split that upheld a lower court's ruling.

They got a consolation prize. Polls indicate that a major part of the Democrats voting for Clinton will be voting Republican down ticket while the Republican pollsters will be keeping to the party. If Clinton does win the election, it's not likely that she's going to be bringing that many Democrats with her.

News of the demise of the GOP has been severely exaggerated.

I'd like to see that polling.

I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of Republicans and Independents who might have voted Republican if it wasn't Trump are likely to split the ticket, but Democrats? Some always do of course, but in significant numbers?

The Republicans long term problems are very real and unless they can figure out a way to change, they're going to be in trouble. But that's in the long term. In the short term, they're definitely not dead yet. There are certainly plenty of states they're still strong in and others where they've gerrymandered enough to dominate House seats and state legislatures.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Rednal wrote:
Sadly, that suggests at least two more years of excessive gridlock. I... don't feel like Republicans in Congress have any interest in compromising with a Democrat president.
I imagine that Mitch is preparing his "one term only" speech for Clinton now. We may very well see a split court for another four years unless another Justice kicks off, or retires. Or Trump actually wins, which is not beyond probability.

I'm sure he's thinking that way, whether he openly says it or not.

Still, if the Democrats take the Senate, which appears far more likely than a Trump victory, we'll see the SC seat filled, even if they have to use the "Constitutional Option" to do it. Even if not, I doubt they'll actually hold out without the figleaf of a lame duck president. I've been wrong about how crazy Republicans can get before though.


thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Rednal wrote:
In a move that probably won't help Republicans, the Supreme Court declined to reinstate parts of North Carolina's new Voter ID law, in a 4-4 split that upheld a lower court's ruling.

They got a consolation prize. Polls indicate that a major part of the Democrats voting for Clinton will be voting Republican down ticket while the Republican pollsters will be keeping to the party. If Clinton does win the election, it's not likely that she's going to be bringing that many Democrats with her.

News of the demise of the GOP has been severely exaggerated.

I'd like to see that polling.

I wouldn't be surprised if a good chunk of Republicans and Independents who might have voted Republican if it wasn't Trump are likely to split the ticket, but Democrats? Some always do of course, but in significant numbers?

The Republicans long term problems are very real and unless they can figure out a way to change, they're going to be in trouble. But that's in the long term. In the short term, they're definitely not dead yet. There are certainly plenty of states they're still strong in and others where they've gerrymandered enough to dominate House seats and state legislatures.

From USAToday:

n what could be good news for endangered Republican senators up for re-election this fall, a majority of Hillary Clinton supporters say they are likely to split the ticket — that is, vote for the Democratic presidential candidate but then support some GOP candidates for the Senate or other offices down the ballot.

In a nationwide USA TODAY/Suffolk University Poll, a third of Clinton's supporters, 32%, say they are "very likely" to split their votes, and another 20% say they are "somewhat" likely. Twenty percent say they are "not very likely" to split the ticket, and 23% say they'll vote for Democratic candidates up and down the ballot.

In contrast, a majority of Donald Trump supporters say they probably or definitely will vote only for Republicans. A third, 33%, say they plan to vote a straight GOP ticket up and down the ballot, and another 20% say they are "not very likely" to vote for Democratic candidates for other offices.

The survey of likely voters, including 483 Clinton supporters and 409 Trump voters, has margins of error of +/-4.5 percentage points and 4.9 points for the partisan subsamples.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Rednal wrote:
Sadly, that suggests at least two more years of excessive gridlock. I... don't feel like Republicans in Congress have any interest in compromising with a Democrat president.
I imagine that Mitch is preparing his "one term only" speech for Clinton now. We may very well see a split court for another four years unless another Justice kicks off, or retires. Or Trump actually wins, which is not beyond probability.

I'm sure he's thinking that way, whether he openly says it or not.

Still, if the Democrats take the Senate, which appears far more likely than a Trump victory, we'll see the SC seat filled, even if they have to use the "Constitutional Option" to do it. Even if not, I doubt they'll actually hold out without the figleaf of a lame duck president. I've been wrong about how crazy Republicans can get before though.

The Democrats are not likely to take either House in this election, any more than they're likely to turn Texas blue. I'm not seeing a disdain for Trump in particular translating into a demise for Republicans in general.


thejeff wrote:

Still, if the Democrats take the Senate, which appears far more likely than a Trump victory, we'll see the SC seat filled, even if they have to use the "Constitutional Option" to do it. Even if not, I doubt they'll actually hold out without the figleaf of a lame duck president. I've been wrong about how crazy Republicans can get before though.

Yeah, if they lose the Senate, I imagine they'll confirm Garland for SCotUS before Clinton is sworn it, rather than risk her nominating someone who's actually a liberal/progressive. Still...
thejeff wrote:

I've been wrong about how crazy Republicans can get before though.

+1

Edit:

thejeff wrote:

The Democrats are not likely to take either House in this election, any more than they're likely to turn Texas blue. I'm not seeing a disdain for Trump in particular translating into a demise for Republicans in general.

The House? No. The Senate? There's still a good chance, although I think it's only by one seat.

Texas going blue this year? No. In the near future? Yeah, it can, especially when all those Latino's remember Trump and the RNC's embrace of his hateful rhetoric.


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
thejeff wrote:

Still, if the Democrats take the Senate, which appears far more likely than a Trump victory, we'll see the SC seat filled, even if they have to use the "Constitutional Option" to do it. Even if not, I doubt they'll actually hold out without the figleaf of a lame duck president. I've been wrong about how crazy Republicans can get before though.

Yeah, if they lose the Senate, I imagine they'll confirm Garland for SCotUS before Clinton is sworn it, rather than risk her nominating someone who's actually a liberal/progressive. Still...
thejeff wrote:

I've been wrong about how crazy Republicans can get before though.

+1

The Democrats would have to achieve a supermajority of 60 seats, otherwise the Republicans can use the same obstruction techniques that they used so well. But I don't think that they're getting even a simple majority this fall. They're fielding after all a candidate that's even more disliked personally than Trump.


...Who? I thought Clinton was the second most-disliked candidate in recorded history, trailing only Trump.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The Democrats would have to achieve a supermajority of 60 seats, otherwise the Republicans can use the same obstruction techniques that they used so well. But I don't think that they're getting even a simple majority this fall. They're fielding after all a candidate that's even more disliked personally than Trump.

Nope. The Senate can rewrite the rules of the Senate as they like, including the nuclear option (simple majority) for SCotUS appointees.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The Democrats are not likely to take either House in this election...

I assume you mean either chamber of congress. Don't tell the odds makers that. They've got Democrats at 2:1 to retake the Senate.

Indeed, given how many seats the GOP has to defend this election, the Senate was considered in play even before the presidential candidates were chosen.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Rednal wrote:
Sadly, that suggests at least two more years of excessive gridlock. I... don't feel like Republicans in Congress have any interest in compromising with a Democrat president.
I imagine that Mitch is preparing his "one term only" speech for Clinton now. We may very well see a split court for another four years unless another Justice kicks off, or retires. Or Trump actually wins, which is not beyond probability.

I'm sure he's thinking that way, whether he openly says it or not.

Still, if the Democrats take the Senate, which appears far more likely than a Trump victory, we'll see the SC seat filled, even if they have to use the "Constitutional Option" to do it. Even if not, I doubt they'll actually hold out without the figleaf of a lame duck president. I've been wrong about how crazy Republicans can get before though.

The Democrats are not likely to take either House in this election, any more than they're likely to turn Texas blue. I'm not seeing a disdain for Trump in particular translating into a demise for Republicans in general.

Predictwise still has the Senate at a 66% chance. The House is very unlikely.

The Senate is partly due to overall Democratic advantage, including Trump's drag on other races, but largely because this is 6 years after the Republican wave in 2010. They won a lot of seats that year they'd have trouble holding in any other year.


Rednal wrote:
...Who? I thought Clinton was the second most-disliked candidate in recorded history, trailing only Trump.

The public still eats up appearances by Trump because they consider him entertainment value, even many of the folks who won't vote for him.

In contrast, even the bulk of Clinton's supporters are less than enthusiastic about her... especially the Sanders crowd. And a fair number of people who are voting for her are folks who'd normally vote for conservatives and are only voting for Clinton because of repugnance for Trump, personally. They still won't touch any other Democrat though.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The Democrats are not likely to take either House in this election...

I assume you mean either chamber of congress. Don't tell the odds makers that. They've got Democrats at 2:1 to retake the Senate.

Indeed, given how many seats the GOP has to defend this election, the Senate was considered in play even before the presidential candidates were chosen.

What are their odds at the Democrats holding 60 seats? Because without a super majority, the Republicans can still block hearings by filibuster.


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The Democrats would have to achieve a supermajority of 60 seats, otherwise the Republicans can use the same obstruction techniques that they used so well. But I don't think that they're getting even a simple majority this fall. They're fielding after all a candidate that's even more disliked personally than Trump.
Nope. The Senate can rewrite the rules of the Senate as they like, including the nuclear option (simple majority) for SCotUS appointees.

Yes. If Drahliana was talking about getting a supermajority, that's out of the question, but a simple majority and thus control is likely.

With that, even without the Constitutional Option*, outright blocking of all SC nominees is unlikely. Not every Republican Senator is suicidal.

*The name used when Republicans threatened to eliminate the filibuster for nominations back in the Bush years.


CBDunkerson wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The Democrats are not likely to take either House in this election...

I assume you mean either chamber of congress. Don't tell the odds makers that. They've got Democrats at 2:1 to retake the Senate.

Indeed, given how many seats the GOP has to defend this election, the Senate was considered in play even before the presidential candidates were chosen.

Considering that those same oddsmakers have been almost totally wrong about Trump so far, I'm less than sanguine. They also underestimated just how badly the Democrats would lose during Obama's midterms.

Silver Crusade

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Irontruth wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Rednal wrote:
Aside from the Trump campaign's releases - including an obviously false assessment of Trump's own health

For those who haven't seen it, I really strongly encourage you to read the assessment in question, and a doctor's analysis of its contents. You can find them both here.

I mean, daaaaaaaaaamn.

Perhaps you would find Trump's medical letter more convincing if read by a doctor with more gravitas, such as Dr. John A. Zoidberg? (3 parts)

They messed it up.

Zoidberg says "To whom it may concern", but the letter says "to whom my concern."

Dr. Zoidberg, instinctively a better Doctor than Trump's physician.

Let that sink in.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The Democrats are not likely to take either House in this election...

I assume you mean either chamber of congress. Don't tell the odds makers that. They've got Democrats at 2:1 to retake the Senate.

Indeed, given how many seats the GOP has to defend this election, the Senate was considered in play even before the presidential candidates were chosen.

What are their odds at the Democrats holding 60 seats? Because without a super majority, the Republicans can still block hearings by filibuster.

They can't block the hearings. They can block the vote.

They can use that to encourage a more moderate nominee. Likely a few Republicans from more moderate states can be peeled off to win a cloture vote, for a moderate nominee.
If not, if they do simply decide to not let any Democratic nominee through, then the Senate can decide, by simple majority vote, that the Senate Rules that appear to say that judicial nominees can be filibustered, don't actually say that and the nomination can move forward and be voted on. Yes. Senate Rules are weird.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
CBDunkerson wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
The Democrats are not likely to take either House in this election...

I assume you mean either chamber of congress. Don't tell the odds makers that. They've got Democrats at 2:1 to retake the Senate.

Indeed, given how many seats the GOP has to defend this election, the Senate was considered in play even before the presidential candidates were chosen.

Considering that those same oddsmakers have been almost totally wrong about Trump so far, I'm less than sanguine. They also underestimated just how badly the Democrats would lose during Obama's midterms.

As I've said before, the oddmakers had Trump as the likely primary winner as early as December.

The pundits thought things would change.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Rednal wrote:
...Who? I thought Clinton was the second most-disliked candidate in recorded history, trailing only Trump.

The public still eats up appearances by Trump because they consider him entertainment value, even many of the folks who won't vote for him.

In contrast, even the bulk of Clinton's supporters are less than enthusiastic about her... especially the Sanders crowd. And a fair number of people who are voting for her are folks who'd normally vote for conservatives and are only voting for Clinton because of repugnance for Trump, personally. They still won't touch any other Democrat though.

Don't judge popular opinion by rally size. That's a mistake Trump's still making. And one Bernie made as well.

You're right that Clinton's winning Republican voters who wouldn't normally vote Democratic and likely won't do so downticket (or more accurately Trump's driving them away and probably more won't vote at all), but that doesn't mean there will actually be less downticket Democratic votes, just a smaller percentage. It's not like the unenthusiatic Bernie supporters are going to turn out for her and not vote downticket - it's her they're likely to be upset with.


thejeff wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
Rednal wrote:
...Who? I thought Clinton was the second most-disliked candidate in recorded history, trailing only Trump.

The public still eats up appearances by Trump because they consider him entertainment value, even many of the folks who won't vote for him.

In contrast, even the bulk of Clinton's supporters are less than enthusiastic about her... especially the Sanders crowd. And a fair number of people who are voting for her are folks who'd normally vote for conservatives and are only voting for Clinton because of repugnance for Trump, personally. They still won't touch any other Democrat though.

Don't judge popular opinion by rally size. That's a mistake Trump's still making. And one Bernie made as well.

You're right that Clinton's winning Republican voters who wouldn't normally vote Democratic and likely won't do so downticket (or more accurately Trump's driving them away and probably more won't vote at all), but that doesn't mean there will actually be less downticket Democratic votes, just a smaller percentage. It's not like the unenthusiatic Bernie supporters are going to turn out for her and not vote downticket - it's her they're likely to be upset with.

Who they're really upset at is the Democratic Party at large, in particular it's leadership who they perceive as having rigged the contest against their candidate. They may just vote Republican downticket to get at them. The only reason they're not voting Trump as well is their even greater dislike of him.


Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Yeah, if they lose the Senate, I imagine they'll confirm Garland for SCotUS before Clinton is sworn it, rather than risk her nominating someone who's actually a liberal/progressive. Still...

I'm betting the minute she wins, Garland recinds his nomination to the SC and then Obama just shrugs his shoulders and says "What can I do? I'm a lame duck. You'll have to wait for the next President."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fergie wrote:

It is also part of "controlling the message", that has been the Right's media strategy for years now. Rush/Hanity/O'Reily/Coulture/ say some stupid ignorant hateful garbage, and the media talk about it for a day or two. Politicians on the right backtrack a little, and the Left is outraged. But the Right gets to have their message be the topic of discussion.

Trump has figured out how to be both the guy who says the crazy s!+&, and the politician who benefits.

Maybe someday the Left and media will figure it out and stop falling for it, but it has been going on for years now.

That's pretty much how Scott Walker has done his thing in Wisconsin.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
GregH wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Yeah, if they lose the Senate, I imagine they'll confirm Garland for SCotUS before Clinton is sworn it, rather than risk her nominating someone who's actually a liberal/progressive. Still...
I'm betting the minute she wins, Garland recinds his nomination to the SC and then Obama just shrugs his shoulders and says "What can I do? I'm a lame duck. You'll have to wait for the next President."

Personally, I'd love to see Garland withdraw his name early in October, citing the unprecedented delay in moving on his confirmation and the need to get his life off hold. Then have Obama nominate a young firebrand liberal.

I've got nothing really against Garland, but the Republicans can't be allowed to keep him as a fallback - No matter what happens we can't get worse than him. There needs to be a price for the obstruction and part of that price should be a nominee they like even less.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
GregH wrote:
Pillbug Toenibbler wrote:
Yeah, if they lose the Senate, I imagine they'll confirm Garland for SCotUS before Clinton is sworn it, rather than risk her nominating someone who's actually a liberal/progressive. Still...

I'm betting the minute she wins, Garland recinds his nomination to the SC and then Obama just shrugs his shoulders and says "What can I do? I'm a lame duck. You'll have to wait for the next President."

...and then Clinton nominates Obama for SCotUS. :)

It'd never happen, mostly 'cause Michelle Obama wants to get out of DC ASAP, but it'd be fun to see how many Repubs have aneurysms, strokes, and heart attacks.

1,801 to 1,850 of 7,079 << first < prev | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / 2016 US Election All Messageboards