US General Election Megathread: Trump vs Clinton

[Kelinfort]

Whatcha think?

People like using "Racist" and "intolerant" as some argument to discredit someone when they point out an issue like immigration and offer a solution they don't like. She did good in making this video.

I think it's a dumbfuck position regardless.

Inb4 "evil neoliberals"

[Kelinfort]

Good article: [url=gawker.com/dont-blow-this-1775111772?rev=1462551339112]Hillary Clinton, Don't Blow This[/url]

Gawker.
Not giving them the revenue sorry. Also I sorely doubt, given our previous interactions with what you think are "Good articles" that this will actually be a good article. It'll be pandering to one side with no actual substance or information, just narrative.

I can already guess:
"Trump is a fascist! Racist! supreme court omg! Don't blow it."

>gawker
>uses Bild in OP

Kek

[Novus America]

Good article: [url=gawker.com/dont-blow-this-1775111772?rev=1462551339112]Hillary Clinton, Don't Blow This[/url]

Gawker.
Not giving them the revenue sorry. Also I sorely doubt, given our previous interactions with what you think are "Good articles" that this will actually be a good article. It'll be pandering to one side with no actual substance or information, just narrative.

I can already guess:
"Trump is a fascist! Racist! supreme court omg! Don't blow it."

You should read it. It is actually spot on. It points out that making Trump into some dangerous powerful force just plays into his campaign.

[Arumdaum]

Whatcha think?

People like using "Racist" and "intolerant" as some argument to discredit someone when they point out an issue like immigration and offer a solution they don't like. She did good in making this video.

Is there nothing wrong with racism and intolerance?

[Vatyrzom]

Good article: [url=gawker.com/dont-blow-this-1775111772?rev=1462551339112]Hillary Clinton, Don't Blow This[/url]

Gawker.
Not giving them the revenue sorry. Also I sorely doubt, given our previous interactions with what you think are "Good articles" that this will actually be a good article. It'll be pandering to one side with no actual substance or information, just narrative.

I can already guess:
"Trump is a fascist! Racist! supreme court omg! Don't blow it."

Here: http://archive.is/FuLre

It's basically the realization that the Democratic Party is incompetent and that Hillary Clinton's attempts to distinguish Trump from the Republicans as a whole is only going to help Trump because everyone hates the Republican Establishment right now.

[Wallenburg]

Good article: [url=gawker.com/dont-blow-this-1775111772?rev=1462551339112]Hillary Clinton, Don't Blow This[/url]

Gawker.
Not giving them the revenue sorry. Also I sorely doubt, given our previous interactions with what you think are "Good articles" that this will actually be a good article. It'll be pandering to one side with no actual substance or information, just narrative.

I can already guess:
"Trump is a fascist! Racist! supreme court omg! Don't blow it."

What happened to not rejecting sources based on the site they came from?

[Ostroeuropa]

Gawker.
Not giving them the revenue sorry. Also I sorely doubt, given our previous interactions with what you think are "Good articles" that this will actually be a good article. It'll be pandering to one side with no actual substance or information, just narrative.

I can already guess:
"Trump is a fascist! Racist! supreme court omg! Don't blow it."

Here: http://archive.is/FuLre

It's basically the realization that the Democratic Party is incompetent and that Hillary Clinton's attempts to distinguish Trump from the Republicans as a whole is only going to help Trump because everyone hates the Republican Establishment right now.

Thanks. Yeh that's pretty much true, okay then.

Gawker.
Not giving them the revenue sorry. Also I sorely doubt, given our previous interactions with what you think are "Good articles" that this will actually be a good article. It'll be pandering to one side with no actual substance or information, just narrative.

I can already guess:
"Trump is a fascist! Racist! supreme court omg! Don't blow it."

What happened to not rejecting sources based on the site they came from?

I'm not rejecting the source, i'm refusing to read it because it would give them revenue. I will read an archive of it though. I wouldn't reject someones claims if they sourced them with it either.

[Wallenburg]

I'm not rejecting the source, i'm refusing to read it because it would give them revenue. I will read an archive of it though. I wouldn't reject someones claims if they sourced them with it either.

Reading literally any online news article generates revenue for the publisher, so don't pull that shit.

And what do you mean by an "archive"?

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm not rejecting the source, i'm refusing to read it because it would give them revenue. I will read an archive of it though. I wouldn't reject someones claims if they sourced them with it either.

Reading literally any online news article generates revenue for the publisher, so don't pull that shit.

And what do you mean by an "archive"?

Yeh, that's the point. I refuse to read anything owned by Gawker. I will read archived versions of their articles though, since they get no revenue from it. I don't read their stuff and then decide i'm not going to believe it. I've decided their style of journalism is detrimental to discourse and I cannot in good conscience support them as a company. If someone makes a claim and sources it with gawker, i'll sit on the sidelines until someone else confirms or denies the source, or end the argument. I don't just up and declare it wrong.

This particular article is actually better than I expected for Gawker, but it doesn't change my opinion of them or their business practices.

[Sasar De]

Donald Trump does not believe in liberal democracy.

[Wallenburg]

Reading literally any online news article generates revenue for the publisher, so don't pull that shit.

And what do you mean by an "archive"?

Yeh, that's the point. I refuse to read anything owned by Gawker. I will read archived versions of their articles though, since they get no revenue from it. I don't read their stuff and then decide i'm not going to believe it. I've decided their style of journalism is detrimental to discourse and I cannot in good conscience support them as a company. If someone makes a claim and sources it with gawker, i'll sit on the sidelines until someone else confirms or denies the source, or end the argument. I don't just up and declare it wrong.

This particular article is actually better than I expected for Gawker, but it doesn't change my opinion of them or their business practices.

Well, I suppose I can respect that. I just hope that you are consistent with ignoring other piss-poor news websites.

[Arumdaum]

I have no desire to give this terrorism-advocating fool any credit, but I must point out that nowhere did he mention race. So I can only assume that you are playing the old lie that Bernie supporter=white and extending that to imply a white supremacist revolution.

Which is, frankly, disgusting, racist misrepresentation.

There is evidence that Sanders has support from various non-white demographics. Or are you going to tell me Hawaii's a majority-white state now? Going to ignore his success with the Muslim/Arab vote in Michigan, or his resounding success in Alaska, with its large Native American population?

But no, keep treating racial minorities as a homogenous anti-Sanders block.

If a white supremacist revolution happens, it won't be from our side. Look to Donald's camp if you're worried about that threat.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-is-winning-the-states-that-look-like-the-democratic-party/

Just saying, according to Nate Silver, who has accurately predicted all but about 2-3 states so far in the primary races, he's analysed the statistics and found that racial diversity is the most reliable predicting factor of whether Clinton or Sanders wins a state, and also the margin of victory for either one of them.

Eh, I don't like how Asian-Americans and Native Americans have been merely treated as outliers this election, despite us being as much of a minority as black people and Latinxs.

[Novus America]

Donald Trump does not believe in liberal democracy.

Donald Trump believes in one thing, Donald Trump. But he is not some would be dictator. He would be a modern day Harding.

[Sasar De]

Donald Trump does not believe in liberal democracy.

Donald Trump believes in one thing, Donald Trump. But he is not some would be dictator. He would be a modern day Harding.

I'm not saying he's a dictator. But simply stating the fact that he isn't very hot on this.

[Ostroeuropa]

Fuckin called it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/06/polit ... index.html

It begins. Strap in folks.

Donald Trump on Friday accused Hillary Clinton of being "an unbelievably nasty, mean enabler" of her husband's alleged affairs and accused her of destroying the lives of his accusers.

What's hillary gonna do?
"NUHUH! ITS WAS TOTES COOL TO DO WHAT I DID." and alienate the womens vote for being, like, the epitomy of slut shaming and rape enabling?

Admit she was at fault? (I doubt she's capable.)

Donald doesn't have to convince women to vote for him. He just has to suppress the turnout.

"You called women names!!"

"You defended their rapist."

[Arumdaum]

I get the feeling that Hillary is going to try hard to get disenchanted Republicans to vote for her, white suburban women in particular. The recent ad featuring Republicans helps to suggest that, as well as pundits suggesting that while Trump may win over some white working class men, Clinton is going to attract more white suburban women.

And yes, I know that the ad also portrays messages of "even fellow Republicans don't like Trump," but nonetheless. I can see her continuing the Democratic tradition of heading ever further to the right in order to "capture the center" or to win back "Reagan Democrats," who have been voting Republican so decades now, in order to broaden her coalition.

Clinton is obviously not her husband, but Clinton was supportive of many of her husbands' policies and made her career as a mainstream Democrat in the years where conservatives and conservative ideals dominated American discourse.

Thankfully, though, I can see the Democrats inching leftward again in the next few elections. The past few years have seen a large rise in those who want more than simply market solutions (instead of "let the banks fail" and "empowerment zones," how about nationalizing the banks and provide more direct funding to downtrodden urban areas instead?) to big problems among the American left.

here's me channeling emily dickinson :-)

Because that fearing it so long
Had almost made it dear.

To be honest, I think the whole white working class being Trump's base thing has been overblown. The median household income of Trump voters so far has been $72,000, well above the US' median household income of $56,000.

Of course, wealthier people are much more likely to vote, but the median household income for Sanders and Clinton supporters was significantly lower at $61,000.

[Arumdaum]

Likability is not a measure of competence.

Most of which have either been manufactured or are from the nineties.

Really? These emails are a pretty recent event, never mind this election fraud..


No. More baseless speculation being driven by Fox News and the GOP to try and tarnish her.

For once, Fox tells the truth? But she really is an unreliable weathervane who didn't even support gay marriage until recently.


Really? Hillary is going to do something worse than ban Muslims from entering the United States and building a gigantic wall on the southern border and deporting people en masse and and punishing women for having abortions and launching another invasion of Iraq?

She will start every war in the world for Goldman-Sachs and her Wall Street owners.


Wallenburg said what I was going to say, but I will throw in that Hillary's ability to get votes is not in fact because she's a woman and she's "playing the woman card." We both know that's horseshit right there.

Additionally, I think building the wall may raise government spending. As will a whole host of other Trump policies.


Bernie changes his views when it's convenient just like any other politician (see: guns), has no coherent foreign policy, has a whole host of other issues, and in any case is basically doomed at this point in the race. Barring an absolutely earthshaking shift, he's going down, and it's frustrating to me that there are some of his supporters out there who would rather literally let Donald Trump take over and work to ruin everything Bernie has ever fought for over his career than help elect Hillary. Trump is basically the antithesis of Bernie besides their mutual opposition to trade.

Bernie wants $15, not $12. this is a big difference. Bernie wants a working Single-Payer system like the National Health Service, ending the greed of private insurance and making sure everyone can be covered. Bernie does not only want to raise taxes on the top 5%, but also on Wall Street, and wants to crack down on corporations jumping through loopholes to avoid taxation here in the USA. Bernie has almost never changed his views on anything. Hillary was a Goldwater Girl and did not stand behind gay marriage until recently, changed her stance on minimum wage, the list goes on... And no, I will never vote for Hillary. If Bernie does not win, I will be going to a third party.Bernie has brought important issues to the table, and it would be a shame if we forgot about those.

please don't live in a swing state

Even if you don't like Clinton though - remember to vote for Democrats downticket. The more Democrats are in office, the less likely Democrats will feel pressured to shift right, and the more likely Republicans will be pressured to shift left.

Also, any policies the Democrats enact won't be as bad as the ones Republicans do.

Also, a lot of people forget that the President appoints justices to more than just the Supreme Court. The President also appoints them to the Appellate Courts, where many justices for the Supreme Court chosen. These courts have a huge amount of influence as well. A Democratic president and many Democrats in the Senate mean that the courts can be made much more progressive.

Does anyone think this is possible?

(Image)

Probably, but I'd make Nevada blue if you're making Colorado blue as well.

[The disunited states]

Fuckin called it.

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/05/06/polit ... index.html

It begins. Strap in folks.

Donald Trump on Friday accused Hillary Clinton of being "an unbelievably nasty, mean enabler" of her husband's alleged affairs and accused her of destroying the lives of his accusers.

What's hillary gonna do?
"NUHUH! ITS WAS TOTES COOL TO DO WHAT I DID." and alienate the womens vote for being, like, the epitomy of slut shaming and rape enabling?

Admit she was at fault? (I doubt she's capable.)

Donald doesn't have to convince women to vote for him. He just has to suppress the turnout.

"You called women names!!"

"You defended their rapist."

Trumps behavior is a weakness not a virtue.

Fiorina's peak in popularity occurred after Trump insulted her face as you may recall.

[Arumdaum]

How do you know she wouldn't? Heck, the Republicans are now begging Obama to let them confirm Garland, now that Trump is the nominee and will likely lose, and Obama doesn't even seem to be moving forward on that. Seems to me Clinton would happily appoint someone else instead.

Bernie has specifically said he would not appoint Garland, and would appoint someone else. When asked about it, Clinton refused to say.

To be fair, if the Republicans' outright refusal to consider hearing a moderate is hurting the reelection chances of several Republican senators, then I think it would be politically expedient to support him for now; if Clinton is elected, then she could ask Obama to withdraw him so she can name her own pick.

You characterised her as a shrewd politician, so I'm sure she wouldn't want a repeat of the 1980s where Carter faced a strong primary challenge from the more liberal Ted Kennedy while trying to get re-elected. At most, she'll go centre-left to appease moderates, but she knows she can't afford to anger the Democratic Party's insurgent progressive wing.

Clinton is part of the group suppressing the insurgents. She is centrist and it is difficult to classify her as a solid democrat. She is totally disregarding the left wing.

Clinton is a solid Democrat. Democrats just aren't left-wing.

Clinton is part of the group suppressing the insurgents. She is centrist and it is difficult to classify her as a solid democrat. She is totally disregarding the left wing.

This is why leftists will never have much influence in this country. The demand for absolute purity destroys any chance you have at achieving your agenda.

May as well nominate Mondale or McGovern again.

Considering this years' nominee is Trump, we can probably afford to nominate someone more progressive. Mondale I don't think was considered that progressive, though McGovern was. However, this was also in a time when America was undergoing a large rightward shift.

[Guy]

I get the feeling that Hillary is going to try hard to get disenchanted Republicans to vote for her, white suburban women in particular. The recent ad featuring Republicans helps to suggest that, as well as pundits suggesting that while Trump may win over some white working class men, Clinton is going to attract more white suburban women.

And yes, I know that the ad also portrays messages of "even fellow Republicans don't like Trump," but nonetheless. I can see her continuing the Democratic tradition of heading ever further to the right in order to "capture the center" or to win back "Reagan Democrats," who have been voting Republican so decades now, in order to broaden her coalition.

To be honest, I think the whole white working class being Trump's base thing has been overblown. The median household income of Trump voters so far has been $72,000, well above the US' median household income of $56,000.

Of course, wealthier people are much more likely to vote, but the median household income of Sanders and Clinton were significantly lower at $61,000.

I agree with much of this.

I really don't think that Trump is going to do magically well in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin etc. Even amongst blue-collar Whites, he'll be a weaker candidate than Mittens. He might do better amongst non-college educated White men, but I don't think that'll be enough to win himself anything over 2012.

Hillary's electoral strategy in the General will be interesting. There are several ways for her to go about this, and very few ways for Trump. I think that this is where the map is right now, and I almost gave her Colorado and Nevada. (Montana and Dakotas because unpopularity of Trump + popularity of Libertarians should help as a spoiler.)

[Shrillland]

Well, a lot of people are trying to stress the importance of down-ballot voting. Apparently, Trump isn't one of them.
From the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/06/trump-tells-west-virginians-to-not-vote-in-tuesdays-primary/

[Arumdaum]

Well, a lot of people are trying to stress the importance of down-ballot voting. Apparently, Trump isn't one of them.
From the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/06/trump-tells-west-virginians-to-not-vote-in-tuesdays-primary/

ayyy good work trump

Does it really matter though if it's a regular primary? If they're just choosing between Republicans then I don't think it really matters.

[Shrillland]

Well, a lot of people are trying to stress the importance of down-ballot voting. Apparently, Trump isn't one of them.
From the Washington Post: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/05/06/trump-tells-west-virginians-to-not-vote-in-tuesdays-primary/

ayyy good work trump

Does it really matter though if it's a regular primary? If they're just choosing between Republicans then I don't think it really matters.

Well, I'm sure it matters to people who have different opinions on different primary candidates. God knows WV is full of Republicans, and they probably want people to pay attention to their races.

[West Aurelia]

I get the feeling that Hillary is going to try hard to get disenchanted Republicans to vote for her, white suburban women in particular. The recent ad featuring Republicans helps to suggest that, as well as pundits suggesting that while Trump may win over some white working class men, Clinton is going to attract more white suburban women.

Hillary is already attracting neocons.

[AiliailiA]

I get the feeling that Hillary is going to try hard to get disenchanted Republicans to vote for her, white suburban women in particular. The recent ad featuring Republicans helps to suggest that, as well as pundits suggesting that while Trump may win over some white working class men, Clinton is going to attract more white suburban women.

Hillary is already attracting neocons.

This could be good. The "White working class" mostly live in deep-blue districts (inner city, and city fringe ) which in the states where Republicans have gerrymandered, are unloseable for House democrats. Even where there's no recent gerrymandering, these are safe Democrat seats and can stand some defection of working class White voters.

Whereas the woman's vote cuts across all district boundaries. And all state boundaries. Women are all over the country, in every state and every district, just as men are. The slight imbalance of gender in North Dakota or Alaska is utterly insignificant compared to racial imbalances, or wealth imbalances, or educational imbalances between one region and another. The women's vote cannot be gerrymandered.

The essence of a gerrymander is to concentrate the other party's vote as much as possible, into as few districts as possible, and leave all the other districts favoring the gerrymanderer. NOT safe for the gerrymanderer, that's contrary to the principle. A gerrymander works by creating unloseable seats for the opponent, creating unloseable seats for the gerrymanderer is contrary to the plan.

Now there's a female candidate (almost certainly the nominee) and Republicans should have seen this coming. It was going to be a problem for them, not just the Presidency but the Congress as well. There wasn't much they could do against it, besides campaigning against Hillary years in advance. There was Fiorina I guess, there's Ayotte for later (if she even survives this year's election) but the other Republican offerings of Bachmann and Palin have been really embarassingly bad. Republicans didn't realistically have a woman they could run against Hillary Clinton, the women's vote for "first female President" was always going to be a challenge for them.

Then Trump happened, and it got so much worse for the Republican Party. It's not just the Presidency, it's the House and Senate too. They could lose everything, by attacking the "minority which is 51 percent". Female Democrats running against male Republicans, could pull swings of 10-15% on previous elections and take the House.

Republicans have almost certainly lost the chance of Presidency. But it could be so much worse (hence why establishment Republicans are freaking out). They could lose the House and Senate too!

Actually at this point, I feel quite confident Republicans will lose the Senate. But the House? That's beyond my wildest dreams before there was Trump. It's a huge opportunity, and it's all down to the women's vote.