EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 3743
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46212 Posts
On May 05 2016 11:41 GreenHorizons wrote: Pretty sure Trump would be able to make Hillary look scarier to them than she would make him look. By the convention Republicans will have sucked it up and realized even if Trump gets blown out, he's still going to be the single most powerful/popular Republican in the country so they might as well jump on the Trump train. What has Hillary said that's scarier than the stuff Trump has been saying all campaign long? Hillary flip-flopped on some stuff and a lot of her rhetoric reeks of "the establishment", but there are countless bigoted, sexist, hateful, stupid remarks that Trump has made (and Hillary's second ad includes a small sample of that). | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46212 Posts
Every time a well-known Republican decides not to actively endorse Trump, that's a tacit admittance that Hillary is better. So many Republicans aren't even banding together to say "Trump is the lesser of the two evils against Hillary", which is extremely telling. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24137 Posts
On May 05 2016 11:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Every time a well-known Republican decides not to actively endorse Trump, that's a tacit admittance that Hillary is better. So many Republicans aren't even banding together to say "Trump is the lesser of the two evils against Hillary", which is extremely telling. The problem with that is that they are saying they would rather not have ~1/3 of the party which would mean they would never win a presidential election again without adopting a lot of traditionally Democratic positions, enough so they look as appealing to establishment Democrats as Hillary does to establishment Republicans. Truth is Trump is to the left of Hillary on quite a few issues, yet he's managed to sell it to people far to his right. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46212 Posts
On May 05 2016 11:54 GreenHorizons wrote: The problem with that is that they are saying they would rather not have ~1/3 of the party which would mean they would never win a presidential election again without adopting a lot of traditionally Democratic positions, enough so they look as appealing to establishment Democrats as Hillary does to establishment Republicans. Truth is Trump is to the left of Hillary on quite a few issues, yet he's managed to sell it to people far to his right. I agree, although I think Bernie has forced Hillary to move left on some positions as well, which will help her out. I think Hillary is currently in better shape than Trump is, but who knows what's going to happen over the next few months. Nate Silver and Larry Sabato both predict that Hillary will win: http://theweek.com/speedreads/615901/election-experts-are-predicting-hillary-clinton-landslide-over-donald-trump All polls during the last month (except for Rasmussen, but just barely), have Hillary winning: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html HuffPost predicts Hillary winning, although by a small enough margin that it's within the error bars: "HuffPost Pollster’s polling average shows him losing to Clinton, 47 percent to 40 percent, with 9 percent undecided" ~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-clinton-general-election-estimates_us_5729ede6e4b016f3789425e1 More polls... even from Fox... saying that Hillary is in the lead: http://heavy.com/news/2016/04/hillary-clinton-vs-donald-trump-general-election-match-up-polls-favorability-ratings/ So as of right now, it looks as if Trump would lose by 3-10 percent... but all this could change by November. All of these polls would be super useful if the election was tomorrow lol | ||
|
KlaCkoN
Sweden1661 Posts
On May 05 2016 11:09 oBlade wrote: Well, if those quotes didn't work on the primary trail, why should they be more effective in the general election? Because most general election voters don't vote in republican primaries? | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
| ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46212 Posts
On May 05 2016 12:10 oneofthem wrote: stalin was to the left of hillary on some issues too, this means he had some good in him since left=good To be fair, I think his point was that "to the left of Hillary" = "appeals to many Democratic voters". | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24137 Posts
On May 05 2016 12:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I agree, although I think Bernie has forced Hillary to move left on some positions as well, which will help her out. I think Hillary is currently in better shape than Trump is, but who knows what's going to happen over the next few months. If Bernie is gone there will be very little to hold her to her leftward shift (especially if her supporters are right about how most Bernie supporters are actually going to fall in line). I guarantee at some point there will be an awkward moment where Trump is arguing a traditionally left position against Hillary arguing from the right and the whole country will have a WTF moment wondering how we got the most left leaning Republican and right leaning Democrat in the most polarized electorate in a long time. Shouldn't we have ended up with the most conservative and liberal representatives from either camp and pining for someone in the middle, not two people who are so all over the place that given a position in isolation it would be tough to know which was the Democrat and which was the Republican? For example: Candidate A: -Supported the Iraq War -Called unfortunate black children "super predators" -Is the only candidate with a superPAC -Is the only candidate directly coordinating with a superPAC -The largest source of their fundraising is Wall St -Bragged about receiving a compliment from Kissinger -Supported multiple bad trade deals that cost Americans jobs -Supports universal health insurance -Was once referred to as a famous sharpshooter by another candidate -Plans would be deficit neutral -The establishment pick Candidate B: -Did not support the Iraq War -Does not have a superPAC -Does not want a superPAC -Is not taking money from big donors -Is against the trade deals candidate A supported -Supports universal healthcare -Plans would leave a budget shortfall -The populist pick | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Lt Gov Gavin Newsom announced Wednesday that the first of more than a dozen initiatives proposed to legalize recreational marijuana in California, the biggest pot producer in the US, has collected enough signatures to appear on the ballot in November. Flanked by sober-suited supporters, a doctor in a white coat, the head of the state NAACP and one very conservative Republican congressman, Newsom called the Adult Use of Marijuana Act – which was bankrolled by Napster founder Sean Parker – “a game changer,” an antidote to what he described as the failed and racist war on drugs. “It’s unlikely that any others will qualify,” Newsom said of the competing measures. “We have qualified. We are north of 600,000 signatures. That is beyond what is needed. We need a little less than 400,000. You can rest assured this will be on the November ballot.” Newsom challenged voters and elected officials in the biggest state in the US – and, in 1996, the first to legalize medical marijuana – to step up and support the measure, which he has supported since its inception. Its proponents say the measure contains protections for children and will funnel tax money to strapped law enforcement agencies. “If you’re sick and tired of race-based sentencing, you’d better be serious about this initiative,” he said. “If you’re a parent, pay attention to this initiative. … I believe it’s very important, and I am hopeful that the people of California agree.” Source | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46212 Posts
On May 05 2016 12:38 GreenHorizons wrote: If Bernie is gone there will be very little to hold her to her leftward shift (especially if her supporters are right about how most Bernie supporters are actually going to fall in line). I guarantee at some point there will be an awkward moment where Trump is arguing a traditionally left position against Hillary arguing from the right and the whole country will have a WTF moment wondering how we got the most left leaning Republican and right leaning Democrat in the most polarized electorate in a long time. Shouldn't we have ended up with the most conservative and liberal representatives from either camp and pining for someone in the middle, not two people who are so all over the place that given a position in isolation it would be tough to know which was the Democrat and which was the Republican? For example: Candidate A: -Supported the Iraq War -Called unfortunate black children "super predators" -Is the only candidate with a superPAC -Is the only candidate directly coordinating with a superPAC -The largest source of their fundraising is Wall St -Bragged about receiving a compliment from Kissinger -Supported multiple bad trade deals that cost Americans jobs -Supports universal health insurance -Was once referred to as a famous sharpshooter by another candidate -Plans would be deficit neutral -The establishment pick Candidate B: -Did not support the Iraq War -Does not have a superPAC -Does not want a superPAC -Is not taking money from big donors -Is against the trade deals candidate A supported -Supports universal healthcare -Plans would leave a budget shortfall -The populist pick Yup, I could totally see that happening! | ||
|
economist_
Vietnam719 Posts
| ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
Could easily happen I imagine. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
On May 05 2016 13:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Everyone is also forgetting the potential curve ball Trump could pitch before November. Say he gets a copy of a speech Clinton gave to a financial group. Could easily happen I imagine. I was talking to my dad about this, and he made the same point. Trump went to school with some of these guys. He will pay whatever it takes to get his hands on a couple Goldman Sachs transcripts. That could actually be really big. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24137 Posts
On May 05 2016 13:28 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Everyone is also forgetting the potential curve ball Trump could pitch before November. Say he gets a copy of a speech Clinton gave to a financial group. Could easily happen I imagine. Be nice if she just released them now so Democrats could see them before they vote, instead of them inevitably leaking during a general. I imagine Fox Business/News has at least some of the people that went to them on payroll. Going to be funny to watch her just casually change the requirement for releasing them to Trump releasing his Tax returns since everyone knows there were never any speeches from other candidates that she was waiting for, she was totally making that up. Then he just leaks them instead. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14155 Posts
On May 05 2016 13:12 economist_ wrote: I'm no experience with the election in the US but is this the most anti-establishment primaries in the history of the US? I have a feeling that if the predictions are substantially based on democrats vs reps for the general election then they are gonna be all wrong Meh people have extreme levels of hate for congress but 90% or so of those people keep their jobs every cycle anyway. | ||
|
Introvert
United States5001 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
GH is correct about that Bernie forced her to move to the left on some things, to the point that she's tied herself to Obama on a lot of issues when she would have otherwise moved to the right. That's probably ultimately a good thing. | ||
| ||
