US General Election Megathread: Trump vs Clinton

[Saiwania]

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/15/486153506 ... loor-fight

Alright, word is that the Never Trump movement is defeated. The coup will not be happening, all hope is lost. Trump either has to do much better than how he has campaigned or Hillary Clinton has to collapse for there to be any GOP victory. I want to wait until the party convention is over just to be sure before I go back to supporting Trump, but it will not be with great fanfare anymore.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The only risk that Warren comes with is Senate control, and that would likely last for half a year at most, much less if Reid's ideas on how to minimize the damage play out.

That, and the risk that voters might see it as pandering. Two women? Some independents might think "maybe Hillary is just trying to pander."

She would be the Pence choice for the Democrats, really. Doubling down on a support base.

I'd say that if it were a male nominee for the top spot, it would be seen as pandering, but as she doesn't need to pander to women, it wouldn't be seen as such. Also, I disagree that it doubles down on the existing support base, since Warren appeals to two constituencies that Clinton has had a hard time attracting: Progressives and Millennials. Booker or Kaine, two reasonably pragmatic, finance sector friendly moderates, would double down on her existing base.

[Myrensis]

That is my fear with a Warren pick. Partly that, stupid as it is in the year 2016, two women on the ticket would be a bridge too far for a number of voters in general, and also that it would just come across as , "HEY! DID I REMIND YOU THAT I'M THE CANDIDATE FOR WOMEN? LOOK, I EVEN HAVE ANOTHER WOMAN ON THE TICKET!"

[Yumyumsuppertime]

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/15/486153506/never-trump-is-nevermore-anti-trump-forces-fail-to-force-rnc-floor-fight

Alright, word is that the Never Trump movement is defeated. The coup will not be happening, all hope is lost. Trump either has to do much better than how he has campaigned or Hillary Clinton has to collapse for there to be any GOP victory. I want to wait until the party convention is over just to be sure before I go back to supporting Trump, but it will not be with great fanfare anymore.

Are you familiar with the U.S. Constitution Party, or American Independence Party? They seem more your speed than the Republicans, anyway.

[Novus America]

A simply cannot see her making such a risky choice. Not only is playing it safe her style, but when you are already ahead you play it safe. Trump being far behind needs a Hail Mary pass.

Hillary just needs to run out the clock.

The only risk that Warren comes with is Senate control, and that would likely last for half a year at most, much less if Reid's ideas on how to minimize the damage play out.

Well the risk goes far beyond senate control. People love or hate Warren. A lot of pontential Hillary voters might be angered by Warren and turned away. Also Warren does not add any diversity to the ticket either. Two old white women from the North East is not going to broaden her appeal much, and might very much narrow it. A lot of economic moderates pefer her over Trump. But might take Trump over Warren. She could also lose a lot of donors.

Warren only really appeals to the far left. Hillary needs the center, not the far left. Warren will not likly carry in any swing states either. She will not appeal much outside deep blue areas.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

That is my fear with a Warren pick. Partly that, stupid as it is in the year 2016, two women on the ticket would be a bridge too far for a number of voters in general, and also that it would just come across as , "HEY! DID I REMIND YOU THAT I'M THE CANDIDATE FOR WOMEN? LOOK, I EVEN HAVE ANOTHER WOMAN ON THE TICKET!"

I think that it's going to be the death blow to the small amount of support that Trump has among women, that it'll attract disaffected progressives, and that it'll excite millennial voters. I also believe that the historical implications would be obvious enough that they wouldn't push it too hard.

[Novus America]

That, and the risk that voters might see it as pandering. Two women? Some independents might think "maybe Hillary is just trying to pander."

She would be the Pence choice for the Democrats, really. Doubling down on a support base.

I'd say that if it were a male nominee for the top spot, it would be seen as pandering, but as she doesn't need to pander to women, it wouldn't be seen as such. Also, I disagree that it doubles down on the existing support base, since Warren appeals to two constituencies that Clinton has had a hard time attracting: Progressives and Millennials. Booker or Kaine, two reasonably pragmatic, finance sector friendly moderates, would double down on her existing base.

I am not sure Warren appeals that much to many milenials. And moderates are more important. Going hard left in the general has never been a winning strategy.

[Novus America]

That is my fear with a Warren pick. Partly that, stupid as it is in the year 2016, two women on the ticket would be a bridge too far for a number of voters in general, and also that it would just come across as , "HEY! DID I REMIND YOU THAT I'M THE CANDIDATE FOR WOMEN? LOOK, I EVEN HAVE ANOTHER WOMAN ON THE TICKET!"

I think that it's going to be the death blow to the small amount of support that Trump has among women, that it'll attract disaffected progressives, and that it'll excite millennial voters. I also believe that the historical implications would be obvious enough that they wouldn't push it too hard.

It would lose far more people than it gained.

[New Jerzylvania]

The only risk that Warren comes with is Senate control, and that would likely last for half a year at most, much less if Reid's ideas on how to minimize the damage play out.

Well the risk goes far beyond senate control. People love or hate Warren. A lot of pontential Hillary voters might be angered by Warren and turned away. Also Warren does not add any diversity to the ticket either. Two old white women from the North East is not going to broaden her appeal much, and might very much narrow it. A lot of economic moderates pefer her over Trump. But might take Trump over Warren. She could also lose a lot of donors.

Warren only really appeals to the far left. Hillary needs the center, not the far left. Warren will not likly carry in any swing states either. She will not appeal much outside deep blue areas.

Trump going with Pence indicates he's abandoning any hopes for the center. Therefore Warren is a good pick. I think your statement about her only appealing to "the far left" is unproven, so cite a poll. I also thinks she helps in a number of states on the board in a way no other veep pick can. However, let it be said there is no perfect veep pick out there but she's a real good pick to get out the 18-35 year old demographic for HRC.

[Draymond]

In this race, it's his line.

And what race would that be? Seeing as Hillary Rodham Clinton is the presumptive Democratic nominee and has been endorsed by Bernie Sanders?

That would be the race for President, silly.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'd say that if it were a male nominee for the top spot, it would be seen as pandering, but as she doesn't need to pander to women, it wouldn't be seen as such. Also, I disagree that it doubles down on the existing support base, since Warren appeals to two constituencies that Clinton has had a hard time attracting: Progressives and Millennials. Booker or Kaine, two reasonably pragmatic, finance sector friendly moderates, would double down on her existing base.

I am not sure Warren appeals that much to many milenials. And moderates are more important. Going hard left in the general has never been a winning strategy.

It might be because I am not too keen on my generation's politics as a sorta-kinda millennial guy, but I'd rather see pragmatic Kaine or Booker than to see Warren, unless she has pragmatic ideas as well.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

The only risk that Warren comes with is Senate control, and that would likely last for half a year at most, much less if Reid's ideas on how to minimize the damage play out.

Well the risk goes far beyond senate control. People love or hate Warren. A lot of pontential Hillary voters might be angered by Warren and turned away. Also Warren does not add any diversity to the ticket either. Two old white women from the North East is not going to broaden her appeal much, and might very much narrow it. A lot of economic moderates pefer her over Trump. But might take Trump over Warren. She could also lose a lot of donors.

Warren only really appeals to the far left. Hillary needs the center, not the far left. Warren will not likly carry in any swing states either. She will not appeal much outside deep blue areas.

If Trump weren't the alternative, Warren would be a riskier choice. However, Wall Street knows the sort of disaster that Trump would bring in his wake, so anyone who would usually donate to Democrats won't be dissuaded by Warren being in a largely ceremonial position, especially since any damage that would have been done along those lines was already done by the Democratic platform, much of which reads like a progressive wish list thanks to the efforts of the Sanders delegation.

Adding diversity to the ticket for the sake of diversity would be a boneheaded move this time around. Either of the Castro brothers would be seen as pandering to Latinos, and Booker would turn off anyone who has issues with Wall Street. Hillary doesn't NEED the center, she HAS the center. She's been the ultimate pragmatist for her entire political career, and she's reached out to the right so often that she's seen in many Democratic circles as being one step away from actual GOP membership. What she needs is to get back the Bernie supporters and other progressives who have been largely disenchanted by her approach and style, and who have been tempted to vote for Stein or simply stay home this November rather than vote for her.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'd say that if it were a male nominee for the top spot, it would be seen as pandering, but as she doesn't need to pander to women, it wouldn't be seen as such. Also, I disagree that it doubles down on the existing support base, since Warren appeals to two constituencies that Clinton has had a hard time attracting: Progressives and Millennials. Booker or Kaine, two reasonably pragmatic, finance sector friendly moderates, would double down on her existing base.

I am not sure Warren appeals that much to many milenials. And moderates are more important. Going hard left in the general has never been a winning strategy.

If Clinton weren't seen as the very definition of a center-right moderate, then I'd agree with you. And Warren isn't "hard left" so much as simply "left". Her two major topics of interest (Financial sector reform and campaign finance reform) both enjoy wide popularity among voters across the political spectrum.

[Novus America]

Well the risk goes far beyond senate control. People love or hate Warren. A lot of pontential Hillary voters might be angered by Warren and turned away. Also Warren does not add any diversity to the ticket either. Two old white women from the North East is not going to broaden her appeal much, and might very much narrow it. A lot of economic moderates pefer her over Trump. But might take Trump over Warren. She could also lose a lot of donors.

Warren only really appeals to the far left. Hillary needs the center, not the far left. Warren will not likly carry in any swing states either. She will not appeal much outside deep blue areas.

Trump going with Pence indicates he's abandoning any hopes for the center. Therefore Warren is a good pick. I think your statement about her only appealing to "the far left" is unproven, so cite a poll. I also thinks she helps in a number of states on the board in a way no other veep pick can. However, let it be said there is no perfect veep pick out there but she's a real good pick to get out the 18-35 year old demographic for HRC.

Warren is very far left. Also where is your poll that 18-35 love her? What state could she possibly carry. Yes Pence was a stupid pick by Trump. So why would Hillary do the exact same thing? Warren is Hillary's version of Pence.

Ecnomic moderates will avoid a Warren ticket like the plague.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I am not sure Warren appeals that much to many milenials. And moderates are more important. Going hard left in the general has never been a winning strategy.

It might be because I am not too keen on my generation's politics as a sorta-kinda millennial guy, but I'd rather see pragmatic Kaine or Booker than to see Warren, unless she has pragmatic ideas as well.

Warren's very pragmatic. The most extreme position of hers is to break up "too big to fail" banks, and that's one that enjoys wide support.

[Novus America]

Well the risk goes far beyond senate control. People love or hate Warren. A lot of pontential Hillary voters might be angered by Warren and turned away. Also Warren does not add any diversity to the ticket either. Two old white women from the North East is not going to broaden her appeal much, and might very much narrow it. A lot of economic moderates pefer her over Trump. But might take Trump over Warren. She could also lose a lot of donors.

Warren only really appeals to the far left. Hillary needs the center, not the far left. Warren will not likly carry in any swing states either. She will not appeal much outside deep blue areas.

If Trump weren't the alternative, Warren would be a riskier choice. However, Wall Street knows the sort of disaster that Trump would bring in his wake, so anyone who would usually donate to Democrats won't be dissuaded by Warren being in a largely ceremonial position, especially since any damage that would have been done along those lines was already done by the Democratic platform, much of which reads like a progressive wish list thanks to the efforts of the Sanders delegation.

Adding diversity to the ticket for the sake of diversity would be a boneheaded move this time around. Either of the Castro brothers would be seen as pandering to Latinos, and Booker would turn off anyone who has issues with Wall Street. Hillary doesn't NEED the center, she HAS the center. She's been the ultimate pragmatist for her entire political career, and she's reached out to the right so often that she's seen in many Democratic circles as being one step away from actual GOP membership. What she needs is to get back the Bernie supporters and other progressives who have been largely disenchanted by her approach and style, and who have been tempted to vote for Stein or simply stay home this November rather than vote for her.

She has the center now. She could easily lose the center. Either to Trump or Johnson if she goes to far left. America as a whole is a center right country.

Center democrats win nation wide elections. Hard left ones do not.

And the left is already going to pick the Democratics no matter what. There is no need to pander to the left in the general.

[Gauthier]

And of course Trump vowing to abolish the Johnson Amendment as well as picking Pence as VP should logically kill any actual support he had amongst LGBTs.

[Liriena]

And of course Trump vowing to abolish the Johnson Amendment as well as picking Pence as VP should logically kill any actual support he had amongst LGBTs.

Sadly, I'm sure Milo Yiannopoulos will continue to refer to him as "Daddy" for the forseable future.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

It might be because I am not too keen on my generation's politics as a sorta-kinda millennial guy, but I'd rather see pragmatic Kaine or Booker than to see Warren, unless she has pragmatic ideas as well.

Warren's very pragmatic. The most extreme position of hers is to break up "too big to fail" banks, and that's one that enjoys wide support.

Then I have no issues with Warren.

[Draymond]

And of course Trump vowing to abolish the Johnson Amendment as well as picking Pence as VP should logically kill any actual support he had amongst LGBTs.

But he loves gays.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Trump going with Pence indicates he's abandoning any hopes for the center. Therefore Warren is a good pick. I think your statement about her only appealing to "the far left" is unproven, so cite a poll. I also thinks she helps in a number of states on the board in a way no other veep pick can. However, let it be said there is no perfect veep pick out there but she's a real good pick to get out the 18-35 year old demographic for HRC.

Warren is very far left. Also where is your poll that 18-35 love her? What state could she possibly carry. Yes Pence was a stupid pick by Trump. So why would Hillary do the exact same thing? Warren is Hillary's version of Pence.

Ecnomic moderates will avoid a Warren ticket like the plague.

Here's one poll.

In the face of Trump, who has promised trade wars and suggested defaulting on the national debt in order to get "better terms" from creditors, economic moderates will happily flock to Clinton regardless of who she picks as V.P.

[Liriena]

Warren's very pragmatic. The most extreme position of hers is to break up "too big to fail" banks, and that's one that enjoys wide support.

Then I have no issues with Warren.

Also... she's definitely not "far-left". I know actual far-left people, and they would never endorse Clinton... or Sanders, for that matter.

[Liriena]

And of course Trump vowing to abolish the Johnson Amendment as well as picking Pence as VP should logically kill any actual support he had amongst LGBTs.

But he loves gays.

inb4 he tweets a picture of himself eating something "gay" from his hotel to show how much he loves LGBT+ people.

[Gauthier]

And of course Trump vowing to abolish the Johnson Amendment as well as picking Pence as VP should logically kill any actual support he had amongst LGBTs.

Sadly, I'm sure Milo Yiannopoulos will continue to refer to him as "Daddy" for the forseable future.

Milo is countless rejections away from being another Omar Mateen.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Then I have no issues with Warren.

Also... she's definitely not "far-left". I know actual far-left people, and they would never endorse Clinton... or Sanders, for that matter.

Oh, I don't care about her positioning on the right-left spectrum.

I just care whether her ideas are practical and realistic or not. Which is exactly why I think Trump's ideas are stupid and I would let someone shoot me before voting for Trump.

I can work with a person's ideas if they are realistic. Trump's ideas are anything but realistic.