[RD] Clinton vs. Trump - USA Presidential race.

[onejayhawk]

No it wont. Rasmussen is garbage, and garbage fares the same way everytime, it gets tossed out and goes to the landfill. Now if by "how they fare" you mean to say it will be interesting to see if they are right... That is also irrelevant because it is completely arbitrary, based on whether the Republican wins or not, with no relation whatsoever to the merits of their polling. And if they are "irritated" with their reputation, they are irritated with the truth. That's tough.

Rasmussen uses "LV" as a smokescreen that allows them to just cherrypick Republican voters to poll. They're trash, to be dismissed out of hand.

So goes the story. Please excuse me if I am unconvinced. We will see how predictive they are. That is the acid test.

It is important to note that pollsters are imitative. Nate Silver has written about this at length. Rassmussen is out in front right now. There is no one to crib from.

J

 

[Camikaze]

The current polls are concerning, in that they demonstrate a willingness on the part of enough of the American public to elect Trump instead of Clinton. Based on current data, it is more likely that Trump will end up winning New Hampshire and Ohio than Clinton. Whether or not Trump ends up actually winning, the fact that he has managed to get so close only really works to confirm the idea that the American public is one of more potentially dangerous groups in the world, whether that be through sheer malice or more benign ignorance.

 

[onejayhawk]

The current polls are concerning, in that they demonstrate a willingness on the part of enough of the American public to elect Trump instead of Clinton. Based on current data, it is more likely that Trump will end up winning New Hampshire and Ohio than Clinton. Whether or not Trump ends up actually winning, the fact that he has managed to get so close only really works to confirm the idea that the American public is one of more potentially dangerous groups in the world, whether that be through sheer malice or more benign ignorance.

Florida as well. The key states are Virginia and Pennsylvania. If the Democrats get Virginia or the Republicans get Pennsylvania, enough other states will already be in line. In the event that both or neither states switch, things would be very close.

J

 

[Commodore]

The current polls are concerning, in that they demonstrate a willingness on the part of enough of the American public to elect Trump instead of Clinton. Based on current data, it is more likely that Trump will end up winning New Hampshire and Ohio than Clinton. Whether or not Trump ends up actually winning, the fact that he has managed to get so close only really works to confirm the idea that the American public is one of more potentially dangerous groups in the world, whether that be through sheer malice or more benign ignorance.

This is the kind of Chicken Little rhetoric that really bothers me. The world is not going to come to and end if Trump gets elected and neither will it end if Clinton gets elected. You got Clinton supporters predicting doom and gloom if Trump is elected and you have Trump supporters predicting doom and gloom if Clinton gets elected and it's all equally ridiculous. The US has elected far worse presidents than either of these candidates and both the US and the rest of the world were just fine and it will be the same now no matter who wins.

So while you all wring your hands over this election, I'm just going to sit back, relax, and enjoy my life. I'll be back in four to eight years to tell you all "I told you so" when the world is still completely fine after either the supposedly apocalyptic Trump or Clinton presidency.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

This is the kind of Chicken Little rhetoric that really bothers me. The world is not going to come to and end if Trump gets elected and neither will it end if Clinton gets elected. You got Clinton supporters predicting doom and gloom if Trump is elected and you have Trump supporters predicting doom and gloom if Clinton gets elected and it's all equally ridiculous. The US has elected far worse presidents than either of these candidates and both the US and the rest of the world were just fine and it will be the same now no matter who wins.

So while you all wring your hands over this election, I'm just going to sit back, relax, and enjoy my life. I'll be back in four to eight years to tell you all "I told you so" when the world is still completely fine after either the supposedly apocalyptic Trump or Clinton presidency.

The Republicans took over a very strong economy in 2000 and by 2008 by their own admission had nearly collapsed the global economy. The damage they did to our international reputation was immense, and even though you survived to shrug off the needless wars they started the body count is still mounting. The democrats were given two years to fix the damage and six years to fight a holding action when the Republicans came in swinging their axes again.

The repairs are not yet complete, by any stretch, and the country is in no shape to take another dose of Republican looting and disaster. While it probably would survive it the setback would be more disastrous than the last one because it would be heaping more on a still weakened structure.

 

[onejayhawk]

I agree. Hillary Clinton's incompetence would limit the damage she could do. No one person is ever that big a difference. Usually, it is the people following the one person. Sanders had followers. Clinton, not so much.

J

 

[Timsup2nothin]

SURPRISE!!!!

J doesn't think highly of Hillary Clinton.

 

[Archbob]

Hillary Clinton is just going to be Barack Obama continued basically, which is far better than Donald Trump.

 

[Mouthwash]

This is the kind of Chicken Little rhetoric that really bothers me. The world is not going to come to and end if Trump gets elected and neither will it end if Clinton gets elected. You got Clinton supporters predicting doom and gloom if Trump is elected and you have Trump supporters predicting doom and gloom if Clinton gets elected and it's all equally ridiculous. The US has elected far worse presidents than either of these candidates and both the US and the rest of the world were just fine and it will be the same now no matter who wins.

So while you all wring your hands over this election, I'm just going to sit back, relax, and enjoy my life. I'll be back in four to eight years to tell you all "I told you so" when the world is still completely fine after either the supposedly apocalyptic Trump or Clinton presidency.

 

[Camikaze]

This is the kind of Chicken Little rhetoric that really bothers me. The world is not going to come to and end if Trump gets elected and neither will it end if Clinton gets elected.

Keep in mind that I'm starting at a pretty low threshold in determining what amounts to a threat to world peace, because I'm not buying into the '1968 all over again' hysteria. Just as 'Islamic terrorism' is far less dangerous than, say, the prospect of being involved in a car crash, so too is a politician in this day and age unlikely to bring on the apocalypse. So when I suggest that a Trump presidency would be a threat to the rest of the world (and by extension, the American voting public which is expressing an alarming willingness elect him), that's within the confines of how risky any elected official could possibly be. Of course, the US President sets the limits of those confines; they are undoubtedly the most influential person in the world, directing US foreign policy, which plays a significant role in all international affairs. On the scale of politically created threats to global security and the state of world affairs, Trump is pretty much at the top of the list. As an example, he recently expressed the view that the US wouldn't abide by its NATO obligations to protect the Baltic states against Russian aggression, which is quite a real thing. The expression of such an opinion from the US President, or the potential following through on that opinion, is quite a dangerous thing, in that it may give Russia considerable latitude in its actions towards those countries. Now, the world isn't going to fall apart just because we have a few more Ukraines, but it's pretty evident that a person whose actions would result in a few more Ukraines is extremely high on the list of world threats.

I should also add that the Australian public was almost, but not quite, as reckless in 2013 when it elected Tony Abbott. But that's a far less consequential mistake in global terms.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Also, the bulk of people don't live in areas likely to influence the outcome. If you are in California or Texas, you can vote Jill Stein or whoever and not have to feel that you are somehow potentially responsible for an apocalypse.

 

[Bast]

It's Hillary Time! I'm with Her.

 

[Kozmos]

The Republicans took over a very strong economy in 2000 and by 2008 by their own admission had nearly collapsed the global economy. The damage they did to our international reputation was immense, and even though you survived to shrug off the needless wars they started the body count is still mounting. The democrats were given two years to fix the damage and six years to fight a holding action when the Republicans came in swinging their axes again.

The repairs are not yet complete, by any stretch, and the country is in no shape to take another dose of Republican looting and disaster. While it probably would survive it the setback would be more disastrous than the last one because it would be heaping more on a still weakened structure.

http://www.theonion.com/article/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of-peace-and-pros-464

Still my favourite article in retrospect.

 

[Dachs]

Also, the bulk of people don't live in areas likely to influence the outcome. If you are in California or Texas, you can vote Jill Stein or whoever and not have to feel that you are somehow potentially responsible for an apocalypse.

I appreciate all the pressure.

 

[Sommerswerd]

So goes the story. Please excuse me if I am unconvinced. We will see how predictive they are. That is the acid test. It is important to note that pollsters are imitative. Nate Silver has written about this at length. Rassmussen is out in front right now. There is no one to crib from.

You miss the point. They can not be predictive of anything because they are partisan-agenda driven. If you just keep saying "our poll says the Republican is going to win", eventually you will be right, because eventually, the Republican will indeed win. As the saying goes, "a broken watch is right, twice a day". The eventuallity that Rasmussen gets it right, has nothing to do with the "predictive" power of their polling and everything to do with whether the Republican wins or not.

Also, the bulk of people don't live in areas likely to influence the outcome. If you are in California or Texas, you can vote Jill Stein or whoever and not have to feel that you are somehow potentially responsible for an apocalypse.

Its a commonly made point and I understand it, of course but I think that while you may be technically correct, this position really misses the big picture. As I have stated previously, its not just about influencing the win-lose result of the Presidential election. Especially in this election, its about the mandate, and Camikaze's last couple posts illustrate this.

As Americans, we have an opportunity to demonstrate to the world that a campaign, a message, a man like Donald Trump will be overwhelmingly rejected by our country. We have an opportunity to show the world that "Brexit" or "NATexit" if you will, has no chance here. Towards this end, every vote counts, because every vote increases the margin between Hillary and Trump. If Hillary squeaks by, the message will be reinforced that America is on the brink. A resounding Hillary win affirms our stability.

Also, as I have said repeatedly, your vote is your own, you don't owe Hillary or the Democrats a damn thing...but you are wrong think that voting third party in protest of the Democrats serves the goal of moving the country left. Voting third party moves the country right, because it weakens the mandate. The only way to move the country left is to move the Republicans left. Moving the Republicans left in their politics moves the center leftwards.

The Democrats can go as far left as they want, but it won't matter, because the Republicans will just respond by moving further right and the center or "Overton Window" will remain relatively constant. The only way to move the window left is to push the Republicans left. One way to do that is to defeat them... Another way to do it is to lower their victory margins, which will make them feel threatened, and force them to adjust their positions to stay in office. That is why each and every single vote for Hillary (and Democrats) counts, and no one is off the hook to vote 3rd party.

 

[Lexicus]

This is the kind of Chicken Little rhetoric that really bothers me. The world is not going to come to and end if Trump gets elected and neither will it end if Clinton gets elected. You got Clinton supporters predicting doom and gloom if Trump is elected and you have Trump supporters predicting doom and gloom if Clinton gets elected and it's all equally ridiculous. The US has elected far worse presidents than either of these candidates and both the US and the rest of the world were just fine and it will be the same now no matter who wins.

So while you all wring your hands over this election, I'm just going to sit back, relax, and enjoy my life. I'll be back in four to eight years to tell you all "I told you so" when the world is still completely fine after either the supposedly apocalyptic Trump or Clinton presidency.

In all seriousness, what president have we had who was worse than Trump would be? I honestly believe that if Trump wins it would be a disaster almost unparalleled in the history of this country so I'm just curious to hear what you're using as a yardstick here.

 

[metalhead]

This is the kind of Chicken Little rhetoric that really bothers me. The world is not going to come to and end if Trump gets elected and neither will it end if Clinton gets elected. You got Clinton supporters predicting doom and gloom if Trump is elected and you have Trump supporters predicting doom and gloom if Clinton gets elected and it's all equally ridiculous. The US has elected far worse presidents than either of these candidates and both the US and the rest of the world were just fine and it will be the same now no matter who wins.

Just absolutely, no. There is no precedent for Trump. He has no respect for the institutions of government, he has no knowledge of our constitutional traditions, and is frankly far, far worse of a candidate for president than we have ever had running on a major party ticket. You're tired of the rhetoric? Well I'm tired of people burying their heads in the sand and pretending that this is just more of the same.

Trump is a Nazi and has already forced the Republican party to bend to his will. That isn't hyperbole, he is quite literally playing from the Nazi playbook in using hyperbolic rhetoric to describe our country's problems, and then blaming them all on the "other." Relying on the courage of the people in Washington, DC to protect us from the danger posed by a Trump presidency is simply not something anyone should bank on. When given a chance to stand up to him, almost to a person, the people in his party caved. After watching that convention, I do NOT trust any of those people to fight back against Trump.

Drawing equivalence between the candidates is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. The two are simply not the same in any way, shape, or form.

 

[Phrossack]

This is the kind of Chicken Little rhetoric that really bothers me. The world is not going to come to and end if Trump gets elected and neither will it end if Clinton gets elected. You got Clinton supporters predicting doom and gloom if Trump is elected and you have Trump supporters predicting doom and gloom if Clinton gets elected and it's all equally ridiculous. The US has elected far worse presidents than either of these candidates and both the US and the rest of the world were just fine and it will be the same now no matter who wins.

So while you all wring your hands over this election, I'm just going to sit back, relax, and enjoy my life. I'll be back in four to eight years to tell you all "I told you so" when the world is still completely fine after either the supposedly apocalyptic Trump or Clinton presidency.

As others have said, a president can do a lot of damage. Afghanistan and Iraq killed thousands of our troops, wounded and traumatized many more, killed who knows how many civilians, and (in Iraq) helped cause the creation of the Islamic State and all its atrocities. That's a LOT of suffering and death Bush caused.

Now, Trump is openly endangering the survival of NATO and the independence of the Baltic states with his threats to withdraw and his cozy relationship with Putin. Remember that Dean Acheson's comment about South Korea not being within the US defense perimeter helped give the Communist powers the impression that the South was up for grabs. Now Trump is doing the same thing with the Baltic. If the US withdraws from NATO, NATO will most assuredly collapse, and if that combines with appeasement from Germany and Putin's friends in FN, Putin will have a pretty free hand to, at the very least, force the Baltic states to agree to whatever he wants.

Trump is also not just permissive, but downright enthusiastic about the chance to commit war crimes like torturing suspected terrorists with "a lot worse than waterboarding" and killing any family members of suspected terrorists. The man gets practically giddy at the thought of murder and torture!

On top of this, his election will embolden racists, white supremacists, and hate groups in general. In fact, he already has. He has the endorsement of the freaking KKK, for chrissakes, and David Duke has begun a bid for the Senate, citing Trump as his inspiration. The fierce nationalism behind the Leave campaign in Britain led to the murder of Jo Cox by a nationalist, and when Leave won anyway, harrassment of all kinds of immigrants, Muslims, and anyone who looked foreign skyrocketed. Harrassers usually made comments like "we voted to kick you people out!" Trump is more virulently bigoted, xenophobic, and permissive of violence against critics than Leave ever was, and this is in a country with a larger, more violent, and much more heavily armed society than Britain. If Trump and the former head of the freaking KKK are openly running on a platform of bigotry and get away with it, and win, you can guarantee that hate crimes and harrassment will become routine. Not since George C. Wallace has a presidential candidate so openly courted white supremacists. And this isn't even going into how Trump would encourage police brutality and a widening gap between rich and poor, which would assuredly cause increasing levels of poverty and crime.

Romney was nowhere near this dangerous. Nor was McCain. Trump is an egomaniacal, Russia-appeasing con artist with a decades-long streak of screwing over everyone he can get away with, and the American people and our international allies are not safe from this. He's so utterly ignorant of foreign and domestic policy that he wants to delegate both to advisors and the VP. He's hopelessly unqualified and even be knows it! And the trade wars he's eager to start would be devastating to the US and world economies. The Great Recession was bad enough, leading as it did to suffering across the world and the rise of right-wing parties with vague promises and bigotry.

So yes, it's fair to say that he represents an unprecedented threat to American and world stability, prosperity, and justice. Anyone who still is convinced otherwise by this point is sticking their head in the sand.

 

[onejayhawk]

Hillary Clinton is just going to be Barack Obama continued basically, which is far better than Donald Trump.

Except, not. Clinton would be very different from Obama. They have different styles, priorities, ideologies, and debts. The two administrations would be as different as Kennedy and Johnson. Whether either is preferable to Trump is a matter of taste.

A look at the morning headlines is instructive. This is the top of RCP's list

Tuesday, July 26
Bernie's Revolution Comes to Philly
DNC a Repudiation of Bill Clinton, '90s-Era Democratic Party
A Democratic Party at War With Itself
Sanders Fans Were Just a Distraction
Meet the 'New' Hillary Clinton
If Hillary Clinton Were a Man
The Path Ahead For Hillary Clinton
Yes, Of Course Donald Trump Can Win
Where the Race Stands -- Post-RNC Edition
No, the DNC Didn't Rig the Primary in Favor of Hillary
Democratic Machine Chose Clinton Long Ago. But Why?
What's 'Make America One Again' About?
Can Latinos Swing Arizona?
Why Trump Can Win Pennsylvania
Why Obama Has Failed to Close Guantanamo
How the White Working Class Lost Its Patriotism
2016 Democratic Convention: It's 1984 Again​

J

 

[onejayhawk]

Just absolutely, no. There is no precedent for Trump. He has no respect for the institutions of government, he has no knowledge of our constitutional traditions, and is frankly far, far worse of a candidate for president than we have ever had running on a major party ticket. You're tired of the rhetoric? Well I'm tired of people burying their heads in the sand and pretending that this is just more of the same.

Trump is a Nazi and has already forced the Republican party to bend to his will. That isn't hyperbole, he is quite literally playing from the Nazi playbook in using hyperbolic rhetoric to describe our country's problems, and then blaming them all on the "other." Relying on the courage of the people in Washington, DC to protect us from the danger posed by a Trump presidency is simply not something anyone should bank on. When given a chance to stand up to him, almost to a person, the people in his party caved. After watching that convention, I do NOT trust any of those people to fight back against Trump.

Drawing equivalence between the candidates is intellectual dishonesty of the highest order. The two are simply not the same in any way, shape, or form.

This is one of your more fair criticisms, but it's still over the top. He has shown that he knows and understands the workings of government as it relates to business. I understand that you believe the myth that it was all inherited. None-the-less, your statement does not hold water. Calling him a Nazi is just prejudice.

J