FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Presidential General Election News & Discussion Center 2016 (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  12  13  14   
Author Topic: Presidential General Election News & Discussion Center 2016
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tom: Could you be a little less, I dunno, cruel? I mean it's impressive, but the direction we're heading makes me tired.

Heisenberg: Less wrath, please.

Posts: 1098 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*confused* Did some stuff get deleated?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What is it that you think I have a low ability in, Tom?
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
I'll put it this way: the race is uncomfortably close. If what you're saying has a substantial chance of reducing anti-Trump turnout, shut the hell up.

The Emperor wears dirty underpants! I've seen them! You've seen them! We have all seen the skidmarks!

TELL EVERYONE!

Silence is capitulation.

Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
Let me put it like this; I'm of the opinion that anyone turned off enough by this to not want to vote Clinton will be inspired to still vote because of how much worse Trump is.

Anyone? Do you have any evidence of this?
No, I don't. But I'm comfortable saying that I think that most people will. And at the end of the day, it's not my job to be Clinton's cheerleader.

JB - I'm honestly confused which post here of mine you're having an issue with.

Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We are not suppose to say bad words (or even the reduced versions of those bad words) per TOS. I would start there.
Posts: 1756 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Heisenberg:
Let me put it like this; I'm of the opinion that anyone turned off enough by this to not want to vote Clinton will be inspired to still vote because of how much worse Trump is.

Anyone? Do you have any evidence of this?
No, I don't. But I'm comfortable saying that I think that most people will. And at the end of the day, it's not my job to be Clinton's cheerleader.


No one has asked you to be. But you prefer one outcome over another and your actions seem to be undermining the possibilities for that outcome. Or at least, not helping.
Posts: 11177 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Hey BB...What's so impressive about Tom calling me and Heisenberg egomaniacal retards?

Also, what did Heisenberg do to warrant your comment?

Also also theamazeeaz...where did Heisenberg cuss? I looked, but couldn't find it.

I'm getting super confused

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JanitorBlade
Moderator
Member # 12343

 - posted      Profile for JanitorBlade   Email JanitorBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SW: I was remarking on his ability to say mean stuff without saying mean stuff.

Don't read anything personal into it.

Posts: 1098 | Registered: Jun 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Okay [Smile]
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NobleHunter
Member
Member # 12043

 - posted      Profile for NobleHunter           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm still confused about how Libya is Clinton's fault. At the time, it seemed like everybody was asking for an intervention: Europe (UK and France especially), the Arab League, a credible opposition in Libya. Sure the intervention wasn't supposed to be regime change but mission creep was hardly unexpected. The US largely stayed out of the ground war (or completely?) and left more or less than planned.

Sure it went to hell afterwards but we never signed up for the aftermath. Nor do I see how such an international event turned into Clinton's pet project.

Posts: 184 | Registered: Apr 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just because Europe wanted to do it didn't mean that the US had to.

The thing about the "credible oppositions" that have been funded in the ME by the US is that they all too often tend to be absolutely contemptible people whose only "positive" quality is that they are willing to fight against oppositions that we dislike. Libya is currently a hotbed of jihadist activity; was that worth removing
Gaddafi?

Clinton didn't have the power to call the shots, but I don't remember her being a voice of moderation or making any attempt to talk the other nations out of it.

Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Hey BB...What's so impressive about Tom calling me and Heisenberg egomaniacal retards?

Also, what did Heisenberg do to warrant your comment?

Also also theamazeeaz...where did Heisenberg cuss? I looked, but couldn't find it.

I'm getting super confused

Um, you quoted the post with the offending section previously in this thread. Tom Davidson did too.
Posts: 1756 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You are talking about "hell"...as in when Heisenberg said "shut the hell up"?

Golly gee wilikers! H-E-double hockey sticks.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[No No]

I can't find the post that specifically bans actual curses and simulations, but our overlords request we not use foul language--- even weekend or censored forms of it. Even though we are all practically geriatric, this is still a "family board".

I have a potty mouth in real life, and rewrite my sentences all the time to avoid using or implying such words here. It's not hard.

If you still read Mr. Card's review, you will note that he still warns his readers of instances of foul language in films.

Posts: 1756 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Dont Know]

Including "hell" or "crap" or "damn" or other pg swears is just silly, if you ask me...which you didn't.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Our personal opinions don't matter here. It's not my house and so it's not my rules.

Also, your first and third words are not pg swear words, pg-13 by today's standards, sure. But they are actual swear words by certain standards. They HAVE actual pg equivalents, which you, uh, forgot.

Funny story. My grandmother (who has dementia and is turning 98 this week) is often sleepy and uses your third word to say how sleepy she is, very very often. Our stock response is to suggest a nap, or tea or say, yes of course, you are really old. I've always wondered if she expects us to be shocked by her obscenity, but ... no one cares.

Posts: 1756 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Darth_Mauve
Member
Member # 4709

 - posted      Profile for Darth_Mauve   Email Darth_Mauve         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I remember Libya and the Arab Spring. Here was a state sponsor of terrorism, who was guilty of blowing a plane over Scotland, and many other acts of violence against his people and others. His people rose up in rebellion to stop him. What were our choices?

Some people wanted us to help the democratic rebels.

Some people wanted us to stay out.

We took a moderate approach, which was support with air strikes so that the same bloody massacres that are happening now in Syria didn't happen then in Libya.

We did not topple the leader. We did not remove him. We just stopped his army from murdering his own people.

Yet now we call that Hawkish and the fate of the Libyan people is our fault--is Hillary Clinton's fault?

She was secretary of state. She did try negotiations and peace talks, while the hawks in the US and the pro-democratic folks in the US complained about the massacres of freedom fighters.

"We the greatest democracy should support others seeking democracy from the tyrants and terrorists of the world."

So where did it go wrong? Simple. The US has become great about planning for the war, but the west as a whole can not plan for the peace.

Before Hitler surrendered in WWII whole divisions of Allied forces were planning, training, and preparing for the peace that was to follow. Those plans either were missing or criminally underdeveloped in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq.

There was Secretary Clinton's mistake in Libya. Not bombing a monster, not being unable to help our team in Benghazi, but in not creating a credible post-war plan for Libya.

Trump has a plan. He's mentioned it several times. If we help Libya overthrow its tyrant, or help Iraq defeat its crazy Hussein, we need to send in a permanent force to take their oil. How many troops would that cost? How much $$ would that cost? How do you keep the wells, pipelines, shipping centers safe when the people of that country think your stealing their oil? How do you stop hordes of natives from joining terrorist groups when you are taking their most valuable resource? Clinton may have failed to plan for the peace, but Trumps plan for the peace would have been devastatingly worse by exponential amounts.

Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Darth Mauve

I would put forth that until we do regain the ability and fortitude to plan for the peace, that we shouldn't be in the business of knocking off dictators, *even when* they are committing atrocities.

A bloodthirsty secular dictator is an awful thing, but I think it's the lesser of two evils between that and having literally genocidal jihadists running things.

Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Heisenberg
Member
Member # 13004

 - posted      Profile for Heisenberg           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
You are talking about "hell"...as in when Heisenberg said "shut the hell up"?

Golly gee wilikers! H-E-double hockey sticks.

I'm going to take a glass half full approach and assume that you're doing this in an effort to help me out.

Please stop. You of all people should know that I am perfectly capable of speaking for myself, quite strongly when I feel the need or urge to.

Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was just struggling to catch up...don't mind me [Wink]
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by NobleHunter:
Sure it went to hell afterwards but we never signed up for the aftermath. Nor do I see how such an international event turned into Clinton's pet project.

You break it, you buy it. Even the Republicans (via Colin Powell) knew that before going into Iraq. The Democrats have to be held to at least the same for their wars.


quote:
On Libya, for instance, advisers in 2011 were eager for her to take credit for the ouster of dictator Moammar Gaddafi. Clinton was initially skeptical of using U.S. military power in Libya, but became an advocate for the idea within the administration when it became clear that Arab and NATO nations were eager to form a coalition.

Aide Jake Sullivan compiled a lengthy timeline of Clinton’s activities in developing policy in Libya, saying “it shows [Clinton’s] leadership/ownership/stewardship of this country’s libya policy from start to finish.”

...
Around the same time, longtime Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal hailed Clinton for the fall of Gaddafi. “Just a quick note: First, brava! This is a historic moment and you will be credited for realizing it.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-kept-a-close-eye-on-her-reputation-state-e-mails-show/2015/09/30/cf24a130-67aa-11e5-8325-a42b5a459b1e_story.html

She owns this one, as her own aides acknowledged.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just saw a poll out of Massachusetts that had Clinton at 47%. It had Trump significantly lower, but still, I was surprised she didn't have an outright majority.

I went to fivethirtyeight.com and looked at their Now-cast poll aggregation, and sure enough the poll I saw was an outlier. But I was surprised how low her actual total was; currently it stands at 52.6%. So then I looked across all the states, and there are a surprising number (to me at least) where neither Clinton nor Trump holds a clear majority*.

Clinton Majority: California, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Vermont

Trump Majority: Alabama, Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wyoming

No Clear Majority: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut*, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana*, Iowa, Kansas*, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey*, New Mexico, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, South Dakota*, Texas*, Utah*, Washington, Wisconsin

I'm quite surprised by several states, like Texas, Rhode Island, and Delaware that I would have thought would have a strong majority and don't. Part of that is having an anomalously viable third party candidate in Gary Johnson, but a much bigger part is just that a lot of voters simply can't bring themselves to support either major party candidate.

(*) I've been a little loose here (in order to emphasize my point) and counted as 'No Clear Majority' a few states, indicated with asterisks, where the model currently does give one candidate or the other a small majority, but where it didn't at some point within the last week or so.

Posts: 2914 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Where are you seeing Minnesota with no clear majority? All 3 of the forecast options show it with a 70%+ chance of Clinton winning.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I don't get it. The man is a crook and a cheat and a liar. He denies doing or saying things that there is video and text evidence for. He short changes contractors and doesn't fulfill contracts. He basically admitted to not paying his taxes while simultaneously complaining about infrastructure that he freeloads off of.
Posts: 1756 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ElJay:
Where are you seeing Minnesota with no clear majority? All 3 of the forecast options show it with a 70%+ chance of Clinton winning.

Not the probability of winning; the actual polling values (the graph on the left, not the right).

<edit>Just to clarify: in many of those states, like Texas or New Jersey, one of the candidates is clearly leading, and so have a high probability of winning the state. But they don't have a clear majority of support, because many respondents either favor third-party candidates or don't express any preference at all.</edit>

Posts: 2914 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I found 538's national level aggregation from 2012. It tells the same story. At this point in that election Obama was running at 51.5% and Romney at 47.5%. This year, Clinton is running at 42.5% and Trump at 41.0%. In 2012, 99% of the electorate favored one of the two major candidates. In 2016, only 83.5% do. About 8% are opting for a third-party candidate, but the other 8% just don't support anyone.
Posts: 2914 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
individually if i didn't already think trump was fully contempt-worthy he would have sealed it with his abstruse rambling in favor of his own little terrible blend of repackaged Laffernomics.

like even just ignoring that his personality is the kind that can't not be baited into bragging that he cheats the U.S. tax system and that he was structured and openly excited to profit off of a horrendous national recession, and that he'd shoot enemy soldiers because he felt they were insulting him etc etc

his tax policy is utterly unworkable

it is a mathematical embarrassment

that and his foreign relations agitations make him so painfully unsuited to the office of the presidency that any goofy dunderheaded crap hillary gets herself into is utterly irrelevant. there is no comparison. there's no equivalence.

Posts: 15375 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also, there isn't the same effect in the Senate races. Most of those have 96-97% consolidated support for the two major candidates. So the disgust people are feeling over the major party presidential candidates doesn't appear to be bleeding over into other contests.
Posts: 2914 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:
Originally posted by ElJay:
Where are you seeing Minnesota with no clear majority? All 3 of the forecast options show it with a 70%+ chance of Clinton winning.

Not the probability of winning; the actual polling values (the graph on the left, not the right).

<edit>Just to clarify: in many of those states, like Texas or New Jersey, one of the candidates is clearly leading, and so have a high probability of winning the state. But they don't have a clear majority of support, because many respondents either favor third-party candidates or don't express any preference at all.</edit>

And all the polls there but one range from +4 Clinton to +13 Clinton, with one tie, and you don't have it with an *. So I'm still not seeing it as in play.

ETA: Ok, I see what you mean by "majority." You're literally talking about being over 50%. With a 3rd party candidate in the race, I'm just not concerned about that.

Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ElJay:
quote:
Originally posted by SenojRetep:
quote:
Originally posted by ElJay:
Where are you seeing Minnesota with no clear majority? All 3 of the forecast options show it with a 70%+ chance of Clinton winning.

Not the probability of winning; the actual polling values (the graph on the left, not the right).

<edit>Just to clarify: in many of those states, like Texas or New Jersey, one of the candidates is clearly leading, and so have a high probability of winning the state. But they don't have a clear majority of support, because many respondents either favor third-party candidates or don't express any preference at all.</edit>

And all the polls there but one range from +4 Clinton to +13 Clinton, with one tie, and you don't have it with an *. So I'm still not seeing it as in play.

ETA: Ok, I see what you mean by "majority." You're literally talking about being over 50%. With a 3rd party candidate in the race, I'm just not concerned about that.

The question is volatility. In the end, everyone who votes will vote for someone. Right now, relative to 2012, there seem to be a lot of undecided voters, especially if you factor in that 3rd party candidates tend to lose support over time.

So where does that 16% of the vote go? Does it split evenly between the two candidates? Or swing more toward one or the other? This chart maps out how undecideds broke in several close Senate contests over the past few elections. I'm not sure of the methodology, but it appears that in most cases the 'undecideds' seem to break disproportionately toward one candidate or another.

If this translates to the Presidential election, it means that this election could still be a blowout either way, with Trump winning Oregon or Minnesota, or Clinton winning Georgia or Arizona. Or, if the shifts are idiosyncratic, it could mean a large deviation from the fairly consistent red/blue maps we've seen over the last four elections.

Posts: 2914 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SenojRetep
Member
Member # 8614

 - posted      Profile for SenojRetep   Email SenojRetep         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I went back and looked at several more years. Here are the approximate percentages of undecideds (including 3rd party candidates):

2008: 5%
2004: 7.5%
2000: 9%
1996: 11.5%
1992: 16%
1988: 10.5%
1984: 5.5%
1980: 22%

So, the two elections that look kind of like this one were 1992 and 1980. In 1980, the undecideds broke strongly for Reagan, who had been roughly tied in the polls, and he won in a landslide. In 1992 the undecideds settled on Ross Perot, and Clinton rode his edge with the remaining voters to a comfortable win.

Of course, the undecided number in 1980 was inflated by John Anderson's third party bid, which has a lot of similarities to Gary Johnson's. It's not surprising that when Anderson's support evaporated, most of it went to Reagan, since Anderson was a Republican (albeit a relatively liberal one). I don't know what would happen if Johnson's support went away, and I don't know what will happen to the other 8% of voters who haven't made up their mind yet.

Posts: 2914 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think that's where those percentages in the Nowcast come into play. I find the idea of MN (I live here, that's why I was surprised why you put it in the category you did) going for Trump laughable. But I live in Minneapolis, and I know that the suburbs and smaller towns are more conservative. So the 30% chance of going Trump is probably pretty accurate. But is the undecideds are distributed evenly throughout the state, we'll go blue. Like we have every election since 1972.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
deerpark27
Member
Member # 2787

 - posted      Profile for deerpark27           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Trump is a minor deity, a demon if you prefer.
Beware the national (American) psychodynamics of demonic possession at or in the polling booth, the unconscious desire to realize reprehensible wishes and other such instinctual impulses that have been repudiated and repressed in Disneyworld (the neoliberal-technocracy).

Why does anyone sign a bond with the devil?

Freud* argues that in the torment and perplexity of melancholic depression, a bond is signed with one to whom the sufferer (here the not quite fully absorbed post-modern "American" or "Global" citizen) ascribes the greatest therapeutic power -- and, of course, the direct substitute for a missing father (who has disappeared into the gap between Abraham Lincoln and Walt Disney).

*see "A Demonological Neurosis"

Posts: 1136 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Whelp, this was a fun week. Things are quite looking up for the Clinton campaign.
Posts: 1756 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Tic Tacs
Posts: 1756 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Elcheeko75
Member
Member # 13292

 - posted      Profile for Elcheeko75   Email Elcheeko75         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can Trump actually step down? Is there any legal way at this point to replace a candidate? Early voting has already started. I don't honestly believe Pence could pull it out at this point even if he became the candidate, but it's enough to make me nervous.
Posts: 46 | Registered: Jul 2015  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I was talking about this last night with a friend. There are never used laws from the 1800s that could be invoked for a last minute swap, though the ballots are printed at this point. The electoral college could also be used, where you vote for 'Trump' but the electors support his replacement.
Posts: 1756 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Most of what I've read says that he's pretty much locked in. Deadlines have past in all states for getting someone on the ballot. Ballots themselves are printed. Heck in many places ballots have already been cast.

You could try a write-in campaign, but it'd be almost impossible at this point given the difficulty in getting everyone informed at the last minute.

The electoral college could try something, but, there are faithless elector laws in most states, and most states pretty strictly mandate how they have to vote.

It would be a legal tsunami that would throw things into chaos.

It's also not really legal issue, but there's a bait-and-switch issue there. Trump Trump Trump...and then at the last second you slip in Pence or Paul Ryan? There are a lot of Trump supporters as well as Democrats who would scream bloody murder, and rightfully so.

Posts: 21894 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For different reasons.
Posts: 1756 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
President Clinton...first an black prez and now a woman! Yay! It's like...the future.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
President Clinton...first an black prez and now a woman! Yay! It's like...the future.

Still 25 or so days to go. Anything can happen.

There could be a Brexit Effect where more people actually support him than will admit to pollsters. Too many people could stay home and motivated Trump supporters could turn out in droves. More Wikileaks releases could turn up something genuinely devastating for Clinton.

It's not over until it's over.

Posts: 21894 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just can't see it happening
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bokonon
Member
Member # 480

 - posted      Profile for Bokonon           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can.
Posts: 6962 | Registered: Nov 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
do you remember how i jumped up and down and celebrated that trump won the primary because it essentially surrendered the white house and the supreme court to the democratic party

i am happy to report that the state of the election is "still super over"

Posts: 15375 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think it would take something truly earthshaking to be leaked from or about Clinton for Trump to have a shot. I'll still vote and am regularly encouraging others to vote for more than the top of the ticket, of course.
Posts: 17149 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's going to be fun watching Trump self destruct...still a month to go and already cracks starting to show.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm still not resting easy. It LOOKS like his campaign is in a full-fledged collapse, but we've seen this for the last 7 months, when it seems like his campaign SHOULD have collapsed, when any other campaign would have collapsed, but he bounced back every single time.

I'll be satisfied a month from now when things are settled. And I'll be happy if she gets the Senate along with the White House.

But until then, no joy.

Posts: 21894 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
GaalDornick
Member
Member # 8880

 - posted      Profile for GaalDornick           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
I think it would take something truly earthshaking to be leaked from or about Clinton for Trump to have a shot. I'll still vote and am regularly encouraging others to vote for more than the top of the ticket, of course.

Have you seen that awful state Amendment 1 that will be on the ticket?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jeff C.
Member
Member # 12496

 - posted      Profile for Jeff C.           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's nice to see intelligent people on this forum who seem to see how awful Trump is for this country (and the world). I watch the man and I can't understand his support. The alt-right movement has destroyed the Republican Party. It's so sad.

The NYT has clinton winning this election with a 92% likelihood. Seems about right.

Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  12  13  14   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2