US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4272

On July 14 2016 03:20 farvacola wrote:
Polling at this time in the electoral cycle is incredibly unreliable, I'd just stick with intuition for now

Donald Trump’s inner circle scrambled to fly to Indiana on Wednesday because they were increasingly convinced the GOP frontrunner was moving away from picking Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his running mate after a positive meeting on Monday with New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, according to a campaign source with direct knowledge of the situation.

In response, Trump's top adviser Paul Manafort, his three adult children and son-in-law Jared Kushner jetted to meet him in Indiana, where the candidate had stayed overnight, in an effort to intervene as he nears finalizing his choice for a vice presidential pick.

Trump remained in Indiana due to a "technical problem" with his plane, after having met with Pence on Sunday and appearing with him at a rally on Tuesday.

Kushner, the millionaire who has emerged as a de facto campaign manager in recent weeks, strongly opposes putting Christie on the ticket. Notably, Christie was the federal prosecutor who put Kushner's father in prison a decade ago.

On Wednesday morning, he and his wife, Ivanka, along with Trump and his sons, Eric and Donald Jr., gathered at Pence's residence along with Manafort for another meeting.

While Trump's advisers remain divided over who he should choose, they seem to recognize their influence is limited.
"Trump is going to pick whoever he's going to pick," said one campaign source, who spoke on the condition of anonymity Wednesday to freely discuss recent campaign deliberations.

Working in Christie's favor, a personal rapport with Trump himself from a relationship that dates back more than a decade.
"They know each other," said once source close to Trump. "Compare that relationship to Pence, who Trump has interacted with five times and who endorsed Trump's rival two days before the Indiana primary that Trump won by 18 points."

If Pence is the pick, it will come as a relief to Manafort, who is pushing hard for him. According to multiple sources, Manafort has long been opposed to selecting Gingrich to the ticket (and to a lesser extent Christie), believing that the loquacious former speaker would be undisciplined and difficult to manage.

Kushner would prefer Gingrich, according to multiple sources involved in campaign deliberations. That's at least in part driven by his relationship with GOP mega-donor and Republican Jewish Coalition founder Sheldon Adelson, who is pushing Gingrich, as well as his own antipathy toward Christie.

On July 14 2016 02:42 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


Short answer - he probably would benefit from a politician as VP, but I think the benefits of having General Flynn outweigh the benefits he would receive from a seasoned politician like Newt Gingrich as VP. Trump will have no shortage of seasoned politicians he can fill his cabinet with.

I would say he's my preferred choice because of both of those factors you mention here, granted I am not fully educated on every single VP candidate that he has been vetted. I fully respect someone that high-ranking in the military as having integrity; it's not an easy position to acquire and military life, even for officers, is not an easy path. In the short interview with him, he did seem a little less versed in speaking on political issues than you would expect from a seasoned politician but that doesn't bother me too much because I agreed with his stances on all the issues he did speak of and I'm sure if he's made the VP he will improve in this matter.

I will be extremely disappointed in Trump if he chooses Newt Gingrich as VP over General Flynn.

On July 14 2016 03:21 Introvert wrote:
Look at the polls. Hillary plunging. But guess what? Trump isn't enjoying an increase of support. So unless Trump shows some actual discipline and messaging, she'll recover her lead. The worst news cycle for Hillary perhaps ever, and he's squeaking out a few statistical ties. We all warn about the usefulness of polls, but there is a pattern here that should be acknowledged.

Comey raked Clinton over the coals, it would be a crime to not pound away at this from now on.

On July 14 2016 04:22 LegalLord wrote:
Both candidates are so unfavorable right now that I could really see it go either way. The debates and conventions are really going to matter.

On July 14 2016 04:21 Biff The Understudy wrote:

What poll?

I looked at that poll agregator, and Clinton is beating Trump by a 3 to 10 points margin, except for Rasmussen which has always been a joke.

I scrolled as far as I could and it looks like it has been more or less the same margin for at least a month.

Surprising New Evidence Shows Bias in Police Use of Force but Not in Shootings

A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.

But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.

“It is the most surprising result of my career,” said Roland G. Fryer Jr., the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard. The study examined more than 1,000 shootings in 10 major police departments, in Texas, Florida and California.

The result contradicts the image of police shootings that many Americans hold after the killings (some captured on video) of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo.; Tamir Rice in Cleveland; Walter Scott in South Carolina; Alton Sterling in Baton Rouge, La.; and Philando Castile in Minnesota.

The study did not say whether the most egregious examples — those at the heart of the nation’s debate on police shootings — are free of racial bias. Instead, it examined a larger pool of shootings, including nonfatal ones.

On July 14 2016 04:27 Introvert wrote:


The ones out today, in particular the swing state polls. They are the best numbers he's seen in months.

On July 14 2016 04:25 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Conventions, maybe, debates I doubt it.

It will be an articulated message against schoolboy taunts. We will have a platform vs insults such as crooked Hillary and so on.

It will be ugly, Trump will win at being a nasty bully, Clinton will win at being smart and have an actual plan, and it won't matter that much.

That's how I see it. I might be wrong.

On July 14 2016 04:31 LegalLord wrote:

There is basically no guarantee that things are going to happen that way. Trump may manage to do some really effective attacks on Hillary's record that will weaken her support. Maybe Hillary will fail to win over the Bernie Sanders supporters by continuing to focus on the less appreciated parts of her platform. Maybe Trump will pivot towards the more reasonable and win some of his detractors over, especially in the swing states. Or maybe things will line up in Hillary's favor and push her to victory. At this point there's no real assurance of either outcome.

On July 14 2016 04:34 GGTeMpLaR wrote:


I love how oblivious you are to how hypocritical and naive you're being here.

'unqualified, schoolboy taunts, nasty bully, demagogue' the list goes on and on of insults she's used against Trump.

"Clinton is taking the highground here with an intelligent message against a nasty, unintelligent bully with no plan or platform"

You're the definition of that which you're criticizing

On July 14 2016 04:32 Biff The Understudy wrote:

Mc Clatchy gives Clinton a +3 lead, +5 with the the two independent candidates, the Economist gives her a +3 lead.

There were +3 spread polls a month ago. How is that a huge plunge?

And how can you make a conclusion on general tendencies on a one day basis? That doesn't make sense unless something major, like a huge scandal or a big debate comes in between. Which hasn't happened.