US Politics

[T-72M1]

I am here. Right here.

lurking in the shadows, lulzing away is no way to be

just about a month and a bit to go, chip in with your thoughts, sir, make PDF great again

 

[VCheng]

lurking in the shadows, lulzing away is no way to be

just about a month and a bit to go, chip in with your thoughts, sir, make PDF great again

Let those with famcy titles and duties make PDF great again. Here, I am just a plebe.

However, I do my part to make USA great. Still.

Back to the topic, USA is great in spite of its Presidents, not because of them. The continuity of pursuing national interests will remain unbroken, regardless of who wins this election, of that I am sure.

 

[T-72M1]

Let those with famcy titles and duties make PDF great again. Here, I am just a plebe.

and this right here is a working class thread, for 'murrican trade and military deals effect us all.

However, I do my part to make USA great. Still.

why stop at great, make it tremendous.

Back to the topic, USA is great in spite of its Presidents, not because of them. The continuity of pursuing national interests will remain unbroken, regardless of who wins this election, of that I am sure.

absolutely, and I'm acutely aware of that fact.

pretty remarkable how that kind of non interventionist and trade populist narrative is now being used as a tool by the right. good thing he's not a crazy right wing ideologue, eh ?

you voting Trump ?

 

[CorporateAffairs]

CNN = Clinton News Network is hell bent on giving today's debate to Billary

 

[Nilgiri]

Numerous Polls Show Donald Trump Won Last Night's Debate

View attachment 338589
View attachment 338588
View attachment 338587
View attachment 338585
​

@T-72M1 @Nilgiri @ptldM3


You do know he's calling her that condescendingly right? To remind the crowd how big of a failure she was as a politician in governmental office, that's why he kept bringing up how she only came up with her solutions during the last few months meanwhile for 30+ years as a Politician she did nothing to solve the very problems she's now claiming she has the solutions for (she helped created many of the same problems) .

Yah polls....I have stopped using them entirely now...be they online or MSM. Former gives it to trump, latter gives it to hillary debate wise.

My thinking is she held up ok, neither collapsed, Trump started out pretty good but kinda lost steam as it progressed as he fell for some baits Hillary set up...instead of punishing her badly (esp on the emails thing....I was waiting for him to continue along the line of intent does not matter, negligence is a CRIME etc.. but it never happened, though I feel he is saving this up).

But one thing that did strike me was that Trump's message was more direct and resonant with neutrals and independents. He didn't give all those awkward dumb smiles and uncomfortable laughter that Hillary was doing, nor did he come off as over-prepared and a typical political-hack (to use his own language) that Hillary did (some of it was truly eye-rolling worthy yawns). Plus he had his own set of jabs to smack her around when she was attempting to cruise.

He will only get better (just like he did for the primary debates)....and he is saving up the really big nasty stuff for later (he has already hinted at one of them: Bill Clinton's "indiscretions".)

Emailgate, clinton foundation, Benghazi and Killary's terrible attacks on women that suffered from her husbands sexual assaults....I think Trump will leave all of these to the very last debate (once he has even more support and endorsements from the security-based community) so its the last thing all independents remember and to get them to come out and vote....while depressing as much of the democrat crowd (and switch them to johnson etc).

I expect in the 2nd debate his approach will be more to establish and secure as much of the conservative base as possible...before the hammer comes out for the 3rd one.

========================

I leave this for people to chew upon:

Mika Despondent Over Debate: Hillary 'Amazing' But Trump Will Win More Voters
Mark Finkelstein



The screencap says it all . . . on today’s Morning Joe, reacting to last night’s presidential debate, Mika Brzezinski was nothing short of despondent.

Brzezinski repeatedly argued that although Hillary was “amazing,” did “great,” etc., it is Donald Trump who walked away the winner politically because he was able to “connect” with the concerns of broad swaths of the electorate. Readers are encouraged to view the video to understand the depths of Mika’s despair.

What do readers think? For what it’s worth, I think Mika is on to something. Hillary was obviously the more prepared, but on a gut level Trump connected with many Americans. He also avoided two major pitfalls: he never got too nasty with Hillary, and though he’s obviously not as knowledgeable on the details, he never got caught out on any embarrassing factual mistake.

MIKA BRZEZINSKI: I think overall for, I’m going to say “us,”and I put that in quotes, it’s a large group of people, I think probably we all thought Hillary won, but my blood pressure kept going up throughout the whole–I could not stop watching until the very end because there was something that was telling me he’s going to do quite well out of this.

. . .

I think he said things that touch on not just what primary voters think but what people are feeling on a number of levels. I just wouldn’t be surprised if he came out doing better in the polls after this, and she was not as great as she could have been.

. . .

I don’t know where I am getting this, just my overall gut feeling from watching the entire debate, she was amazing, she was really good. I just think that he’s going to do quite well out of this.

. . .

What do you look for [to determine who won debate]?

WILLIE GEIST: [inaudible] new voters.

MIKA: Okay. We’ll watch the polls. I think he’s going to get new voters.

. . .

Look, I just think she did everything she was supposed to do and she did a great job and she checked all of the boxes, all of them, and she even had a few moments with zingers. I think he connected. There were like seven times where he said things that really connect with the — where the emotions of a lot of American people are right now, and not just his people and not just certain types of voters. Let’s stop! This isn’t about us.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/mika...-to-admit-hillary-clinton-won-the-debate-but/

 

[RabzonKhan]

Hillary won the debate, big time, watch, her poll numbers are going to go up!

Post-debate poll: Hillary Clinton takes round one

By Jennifer Agiesta, CNN Polling Director September 27, 2016

Poll: Clinton wins first debate

(CNN) Hillary Clinton was deemed the winner of Monday night's debate by 62% of voters who tuned in to watch, while just 27% said they thought Donald Trump had the better night, according to a CNN/ORC Poll of voters who watched the debate.

On the issues, voters who watched broadly say Clinton would do a better job handling foreign policy, 62% to 35%, and most think she would be the better candidate to handle terrorism, 54% to 43% who prefer Trump. But on the economy, the split is much closer, with 51% saying they favor Clinton's approach vs. 47% who prefer Trump.

 

[Nilgiri]

Clinton News Network. Surprise surprise.

Apparently only online polls that favour Hillary count

 

[VCheng]

why stop at great, make it tremendous.

absolutely, and I'm acutely aware of that fact.

USA's greatest days still lie in the future. No matter who is elected in November.

 

[RabzonKhan]

My friends, all the online polls are garbage, I did a little experiment, I went to:

http://www.breitbart.com/

http://drudgereport.com/flashnyd.htm

http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/who-won-the-first-clinton-trump-debate-vote-now-1201870869/

http://wkrn.com/

I was able to vote several times with the same IP address, for example, under one minute I was able to vote three times. All you got to do is after you vote press the back button and go to the page again and you can vote again. So please go ahead visit any of the websites and try for yourself.

@anon45 @F-22Raptor @Nilgiri @Desert Fox @T-72M1 @jha

I especially request @LA se Karachi @Syed.Ali.Haider since you guys a neutral.

Thanks in advance

 

[T-72M1]

My friends, all the online polls are garbage, I did a little experiment, I went to:

http://www.breitbart.com/

http://drudgereport.com/flashnyd.htm

http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/who-won-the-first-clinton-trump-debate-vote-now-1201870869/

http://wkrn.com/

I was able to vote several times with the same IP address, for example, under one minute I was able to vote three times. All you got to do is after you vote press the back button and go to the page again and you can vote again. So please go ahead visit any of the websites and try for yourself.

@anon45 @F-22Raptor @Nilgiri @Desert Fox @T-72M1 @jha

I especially request @LA se Karachi @Syed.Ali.Haider since you guys a neutral.

Thanks in advance

The back button doesn't mean anything, you will notice that if you refresh the page it says your vote has already been counted, at least on drudge, the rest of the polls seem to have closed. Resetting your router or using a proxy will probably allow for unlimited voting though, either way, I'm not putting too much stock in these polls, everyone knows Drudge leans right, if they had a poll on Salon or HuffingtonPost, those might have favoured Clinton.

Meanwhile, Trump is back on the campaign trail.

FULL EVENT: Donald Trump Holds MASSIVE Rally in Melbourne, FL

look at the size of these crowds

 

[LA se Karachi]

USA's greatest days still lie in the future. No matter who is elected in November.

Not true, economically speaking, if you are a part of the middle or working class. They were better off 40 years ago. And the income growth in this country wasn't anywhere near as egregiously unequal as it has been since the 1980s/1990s:

There might be a lot to criticize him on, but between the two, and in the absence of Bernie, he is the populist candidate here.

A lot the criticism of Trump also amounts to "he said mean things", that is superficial compared to Clinton's actual record in office, as the secretary of state, having presided over disaster after disaster.. The incumbency thing also statistically goes against her, the polls have been tightening, Trump avoided any major gaffes tonight..

I think we're in for a photo finish

He's a fake populist. Remember that he's a Manhattan billionaire born to a rich family. If Trump can be considered a populist, I'm not sure who can't. Other than on trade deals, he holds virtually no populist positions. He's just tapped into the economic discontent and anti-corruption wave in this country. But he takes few positions that would actually help solve the problem.

He's done far more than say mean things. He holds some politically extreme positions when it comes to immigrants, minorities, and foreign policy.

Disagree, I think she would have had a far easier time of it versus any of the other 16 he destroyed in the primaries.

There's a good chance that she would have beaten Cruz too. But many polls showed Cruz closer than Trump at the time. In any case, Kasich would have won without any issue (against Clinton---not Sanders):

There are a lot people who would have voted for any Republican but Trump over Hillary. If Kasich was running instead, he'd likely be winning. He was the strongest Republican candidate.

My friends, all the online polls are garbage, I did a little experiment, I went to:

http://www.breitbart.com/

http://drudgereport.com/flashnyd.htm

http://variety.com/2016/biz/news/who-won-the-first-clinton-trump-debate-vote-now-1201870869/

http://wkrn.com/

I was able to vote several times with the same IP address, for example, under one minute I was able to vote three times. All you got to do is after you vote press the back button and go to the page again and you can vote again. So please go ahead visit any of the websites and try for yourself.

@anon45 @F-22Raptor @Nilgiri @Desert Fox @T-72M1 @jha

I especially request @LA se Karachi @Syed.Ali.Haider since you guys a neutral.

Thanks in advance

You are correct. It can be as simple as using a different browser. However, the biggest problem with these online voting sessions is that they aren't a good way to gauge people's opinions to begin with. The people participating in them aren't necessarily reflective of the American voting population at large. Proper polls conducted with large groups and by polling companies mean something.

I would caution both sides though. Winning a debate doesn't typically lead to a long term change in the race on its own. Ask Mitt Romney. The "winning" candidate usually gets a temporary bounce in the polls, but they settle back down over time. It will take much more than a debate to really move the needle for either candidate.

 

[T-72M1]

He's a fake populist. Remember that he's a Manhattan billionaire born to a rich family. If Trump can be considered a populist, I'm not sure who can't. Other than on trade deals, he holds virtually no populist positions. He's just tapped into the economic discontent and anti-corruption wave in this country. But he takes few positions that would actually help solve the problem.

maybe, but he's tapped into that discontent big league.

He's done far more than say mean things. He holds some politically extreme positions when it comes to immigrants, minorities, and foreign policy.

illegal immigration, I suppose that's also a somewhat populist position from the right. On foreign policy I find him refreshing, he's thrown some good ideas out there, he's non interventionist, even to the left of Hillary.

There's a good chance that she would have beaten Cruz too. But many polls showed Cruz closer than Trump at the time.

She would have beaten Cruz in a cakewalk, the demographics just aren't there to support a Christian right wing ideologue like him.

But many polls showed Cruz closer than Trump at the time. In any case, Kasich would have won without any issue (against Clinton---not Sanders):

There are a lot people who would have voted for any Republican but Trump over Hillary. If Kasich was running instead, he'd likely be winning. He was the strongest Republican candidate.

Hypothetical polling during the primaries meant little, Kasich kept touting those same numbers but what did it get him ? nothing. He won one state, his home state. 1 out of 50, the strongest republican wut

I also thought Trump's analysis at the time was very astute, he pointed out correctly that Kasich, all through his primary, never got attacked, no negative adds, nothing. Kasich was also what he described as a cookie cutter republican, dems would have destroyed him in a general, it would have been another Romney story.

Trump otoh, not an ideologue, liberal on social issues, no wonder he's been polling much better than Hillary with independents, and he's making a big push for blue states where Kasich and others wouldn't even bother campaigning. A bit like Shane Warne with his googly and flipper They don't know what to do with him, despite the mainstream media's best efforts, none of these "rasict, sexist, xenophobe" smears are sticking and he's basically tied with her. This much bad press would have guaranteed sunk anyone else.

What an amazing race so far, let's see if there is any 'october surprise' like they keep talking about.

 

[LA se Karachi]

maybe, but he's tapped into that discontent big league.

Yes, though illegitimately, when one looks at his political positions, past record, and who is.

She would have beaten Cruz in a cakewalk, the demographics just aren't there to support a Christian right wing ideologue like him.

Cruz did his best to keep from looking like the far-right candidate that he was. Trump and the establishment's disdain for/fear of Trump's candidacy helped him immensely in this regard. He began to be seen as the "sane" candidate who was also very conservative and could potentially unite the Republican Party more than Trump (though the establishment originally preferred other candidates and had a poor relationship with him).

Clinton would have indeed started out as the favorite. But even Cruz was polling a bit better than Trump at the time. Either way though, Kasich was/is much better than Trump.

Hypothetical polling during the primaries meant little, Kasich kept touting those same numbers but what did it get him ? nothing. He won one state, his home state. 1 out of 50, the strongest republican wut

He would definitely have been the strongest candidate in the General Election. Polls, and favorable ratings, consistently showed that he was far ahead of Trump. Only a fraction of Republican voters even turned out to vote in the primaries, and it's independents that Kasich did much better with. He also lost fewer Republicans than Trump in the general polling. Not surprising when you look at his campaign.

Polling starts to get fairly predictive in the Spring (not the margin, but in predicting the winner). This has held up historically. While it's true that Kasich would probably not have won by 7%+ in the general election, he definitely would have had the advantage over Hillary. Very few candidates that consistently poll ahead of another during the Spring (even as the primaries are going on) wind up losing in the general election. You can look at polling for past Presidential elections.

I also thought Trump's analysis at the time was very astute, he pointed out correctly that Kasich, all through his primary, never got attacked, no negative adds, nothing. Kasich was also what he described as a cookie cutter republican, dems would have destroyed him in a general, it would have been another Romney story.


Trump otoh, not an ideologue, liberal on social issues, no wonder he's been polling much better than Hillary with independents, and he's making a big push for blue states where Kasich and others wouldn't even bother campaigning. A bit like Shane Warne with his googly and flipper They don't know what to do with him, despite the mainstream media's best efforts, none of these "rasict, sexist, xenophobe" smears are sticking and he's basically tied with her. This much bad press would have guaranteed sunk anyone else.

Everyone who doesn't like what polls say use this argument. You're not the only one. Clinton supporters foolishly did the same thing with Sanders (and Obama in 2008). They're rarely proved right. There are reasons that a candidate keeps polling better than others, and its not because they haven't been attacked. You're wrong if you think that polling averages showing Kasich winning by 7%+ and Trump losing by significant margin in the Spring didn't mean anything. That's far too wide a gap. It would be quite a statistical anomaly if he ended up polling like what Trump is now.

Kasich would have done better than Trump in "blue" and "purple" states, especially in the Midwest. He's well liked as the Governor of Ohio, a crucial state as any in Presidential elections.

I'm not sure you understand just how much Trump is disliked by Americans:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/donald-trump-favorable-rating ​

The only reason that this race is even competitive is because Hillary is disliked so much as well (though not quite as much as Trump):

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/hillary-clinton-favorable-rating

What an amazing race so far, let's see if there is any 'october surprise' like they keep talking about.

Amazing to some. Disappointing to others like me. ​

 

[T-72M1]

He would definitely have been the strongest candidate in the General Election. Polls, and favorable ratings, consistently showed that he was far ahead of Trump. Only a fraction of Republican voters even turned out to vote in the primaries, and it's independents that Kasich did much better with. He also lost fewer Republicans than Trump in the general polling. Not surprising when you look at his campaign.

Polling starts to get fairly predictive in the Spring (not the margin, but in predicting the winner). This has held up historically. While it's true that Kasich would probably not have won by 7%+ in the general election, he definitely would have had the advantage over Hillary. Very few candidates that consistently poll ahead of another during the Spring (even as the primaries are going on) wind up losing in the general election. You can look at polling for past Presidential elections.

Everyone who doesn't like what polls say use this argument. You're not the only one. Clinton supporters foolishly did the same thing with Sanders (and Obama in 2008). They're rarely proved right. There are reasons that a candidate keeps polling better than others, and its not because they haven't been attacked. You're wrong if you think that polling averages showing Kasich winning by 7%+ and Trump losing by significant margin in the Spring didn't mean anything. That's far too wide a gap. It would be quite a statistical anomaly if he ended up polling like what Trump is now.

Kasich would have done better than Trump in "blue" and "purple" states, especially in the Midwest. He's well liked as the Governor of Ohio, a crucial state as any in Presidential elections.

I'm not sure you understand just how much Trump is disliked by Americans:

Only a fraction ? Trump got the most votes in the primaries in the history of the party, and he was up against 16.

Kasich and Bernie, we'll never find out how it would have turned out for them but I'm not sure if historical trends matter this time, Trump's gravity defying campaign has broken all the rules.

He does have high unfavourable numbers but some of that has to be the vicious media coverage, sure, he's said some stupid things but overall it has been very slanted. And the people (a lot of them) have rejected it, as is evidenced by him being in a dead heat barely a month before election day.

Amazing to some. Disappointing to others like me.

understandable, but either way, it's not going to be the end of the world. Trump is not some fascist nazi, and Hillary is just another highly corrupt politician.

Imagine Trump as POTUS, chairing G-5/10/20, NATO meetings, making deals with Xi and Putin, addressing the UN

At the very least, his will be an entertaining tenure, that we can be sure of. I think he'll probably make a good president too.

 

[VCheng]

the income growth in this country wasn't anywhere near as egregiously unequal

"In a country well governed, poverty is something to be ashamed of. In a country badly governed, wealth is something to be ashamed of." - Confucius

USA is pretty well-governed.