US General Election Thread III: Clinton vs. Trump

[Ngelmish]

I am unsure what is wrong with cooperating with the media and the DNC. Please be specific as to what is wrong with that.

If it was 2003, and George Bush was doing this in order to drum up support for the Iraq War, you would be up in arms. But since it's Hillary, you find it perfectly acceptable. Manipulating public opinion via the news media is not acceptable, no matter who does it.

You still haven't demonstrated that Hillary herself, or even her campaign for that matter, did manipulate public opinion in ways outside of normal political advocacy. Bush in 2003, by contrast, presented spurious arguments on the basis of incomplete and discredited intelligence.

These are not the same things. Bernie Sanders didn't need Clinton or the DNC to sabotage his campaign, dishonestly manipulate public opinion or cause him to lose; he lost on the strength of his own choices. And as for the idea that he was crucially undermined by these unproven incidents of manipulation, that's hard to swallow considering the fact that he successfully campaigned and fundraised on every incident that allegedly hurt him.

[Neutraligon]

You are basing that on...what? Cooperating with the media is not the same as what you just described.

It's an example. Say Bush or one of his staff decided to cooperate with Fox News in order to swing favorability towards Bush. That would be cooperating with the media.

No that would be collaborating with the media. And that doesn't seem like an example to me, it seemed like you telling me how I would react to a position. Now, evidence that Hillary collaborated with the media please.

[Hurdergaryp]

It's an example. Say Bush or one of his staff decided to cooperate with Fox News in order to swing favorability towards Bush. That would be cooperating with the media.

No that would be collaborating with the media. And that doesn't seem like an example to me, it seemed like you telling me how I would react to a position. Now, evidence that Hillary collaborated with the media please.

It is a bold statement and it would be nice if it could be backed up with facts from viable sources. The blogosphere is not a viable source, by the way.

[Icamera]

Anyway, I updated my prediction:
http://www.270towin.com/maps/R6nJB

Indiana seems like a stretch, but... Utah? And Montana?

What's your reasoning there?

[Neutraligon]

Anyway, I updated my prediction:
http://www.270towin.com/maps/R6nJB

Indiana seems like a stretch, but... Utah? And Montana?

What's your reasoning there?

Utah hates Trump; they just hate Clinton more. The idea is Johnson pulls enough people from Trump that Clinton wins.

[PaNTuXIa]

It's an example. Say Bush or one of his staff decided to cooperate with Fox News in order to swing favorability towards Bush. That would be cooperating with the media.

No that would be collaborating with the media. And that doesn't seem like an example to me, it seemed like you telling me how I would react to a position. Now, evidence that Hillary collaborated with the media please.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8867
DWS meeting with MSNBC president.

[Neutraligon]

No that would be collaborating with the media. And that doesn't seem like an example to me, it seemed like you telling me how I would react to a position. Now, evidence that Hillary collaborated with the media please.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8867
DWS meeting with MSNBC president.

And DWS is not Hillary, so again evidence that Hillary did so please.
Is it really that hard to tell the difference between DWS and Hillary and the DNC and Hillary's campaign?

[PaNTuXIa]

Anyway, I updated my prediction:
http://www.270towin.com/maps/R6nJB

Indiana seems like a stretch, but... Utah? And Montana?

What's your reasoning there?

Utah will split because of Johnson and the CIA guy.

[PaNTuXIa]

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8867
DWS meeting with MSNBC president.

And DWS is not Hillary, so again evidence that Hillary did so please.

I don't have anything with Hillary specifically, but DWS was rigging the election for her. They are longtime friends, and they both have ties to Wall Street.

[Neutraligon]

And DWS is not Hillary, so again evidence that Hillary did so please.

I don't have anything with Hillary specifically, but DWS was rigging the election for her. They are longtime friends, and they both have ties to Wall Street.

So basically you have no evidence for your claim. Good to know. So will you withdraw your claim that Hillary in particular was rigging the Democratic primary. Will you also withdraw your claim that she might be rigging the actual election because she rigged the primary?

As to the emails from the DNC, do they actually provide evidence of rigging the primary?

[The Romulan Republic]

Indiana seems like a stretch, but... Utah? And Montana?

What's your reasoning there?

Utah will split because of Johnson and the CIA guy.

If fivethirtyeight is anything to go by, I doubt that Montana, Utah, Missouri, and Indiana will flip and South Carolina won't.

[New Jerzylvania]

Yeah, I know, just like MSNBC is owned by the Dems.

Sorry, that's what I meant, MSNBC, not CNBC.

Both operations are owned by corporate criminal Comcast. *vomit comes up in back of mouth* Ugh!

[Neutraligon]

Sorry, that's what I meant, MSNBC, not CNBC.

Both operations are owned by corporate criminal Comcast. *vomit comes up in back of mouth* Ugh!

Most major news media is owned by a corporation.

[The Romulan Republic]

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8867
DWS meeting with MSNBC president.

And DWS is not Hillary, so again evidence that Hillary did so please.
Is it really that hard to tell the difference between DWS and Hillary and the DNC and Hillary's campaign?

Yes, it is.

That's kind of the point.

[PaNTuXIa]

I don't have anything with Hillary specifically, but DWS was rigging the election for her. They are longtime friends, and they both have ties to Wall Street.

So basically you have no evidence for your claim. Good to know. So will you withdraw your claim that Hillary in particular was rigging the Democratic primary. Will you also withdraw your claim that she might be rigging the actual election because she rigged the primary?

As to the emails from the DNC, do they actually provide evidence of rigging the primary?

If the wording means that much to you, Hillary herself did not actively try to bring Bernie down. Her staff did.

[PaNTuXIa]

Sorry, that's what I meant, MSNBC, not CNBC.

Both operations are owned by corporate criminal Comcast. *vomit comes up in back of mouth* Ugh!

See we've got another pro-corporate Hillary supporter over here.

[New Jerzylvania]

Utah will split because of Johnson and the CIA guy.

If fivethirtyeight is anything to go by, I doubt that Montana, Utah, Missouri, and Indiana will flip and South Carolina won't.

They have no stats on the McMullin candidacy yet. Likely effect in Utah, maybe even NV and AZ which have significant Morman populations. MT is probably too red for it to matter, but it's an outside bc there's a bunch of Mormans there too. Clinton just won't get enough votes to hold up her end there. It may now have become Johnson's best shot.

[New Jerzylvania]

Both operations are owned by corporate criminal Comcast. *vomit comes up in back of mouth* Ugh!

See we've got another pro-corporate Hillary supporter over here.

I voted for Bernie.
If you've never been a customer of Comcast, then you don't know the horror. *eyes darting back and forth nervously, closes blinds*

[Neutraligon]

So basically you have no evidence for your claim. Good to know. So will you withdraw your claim that Hillary in particular was rigging the Democratic primary. Will you also withdraw your claim that she might be rigging the actual election because she rigged the primary?

As to the emails from the DNC, do they actually provide evidence of rigging the primary?

If the wording means that much to you, Hillary herself did not actively try to bring Bernie down. Her staff did.

That is the job of her staff, the same way it is their job to bring down Trump. So will you withdraw your claim that she or her campaign attempted to rig the election? If not then clearly you have evidence that she or her campaign (note her campaign is still not the same as the DNC) rigged the election. Please present this evidence.

[PaNTuXIa]

See we've got another pro-corporate Hillary supporter over here.

I voted for Bernie.
If you've never been a customer of Comcast, then you don't know the horror. *eyes darting back and forth nervously, closes blinds*

Oh ok. See, I am terrible at telling when someone is being sarcastic on the internet.

[The Romulan Republic]

If fivethirtyeight is anything to go by, I doubt that Montana, Utah, Missouri, and Indiana will flip and South Carolina won't.

They have no stats on the McMullin candidacy yet. Likely effect in Utah, maybe even NV and AZ which have significant Morman populations. MT is probably too red for it to matter, but it's an outside bc there's a bunch of Mormans there too. Clinton just won't get enough votes to hold up her end there. It may now have become Johnson's best shot.

Its not so much that I doubt Mormon country could flip. Its that going by the numbers, it would be a hell of an odd situation where all of the others I listed flipped and SC didn't, since SC looks like the next to flip in the nowcast.

[The Black Forrest]

See we've got another pro-corporate Hillary supporter over here.

I voted for Bernie.
If you've never been a customer of Comcast, then you don't know the horror. *eyes darting back and forth nervously, closes blinds*

Those fuckers! I had them for my flat.

Classic scene of the big moment of a movie *poof* screen goes out. All channels are out.

Call it in.
"Which flat number?"
What ever it was at the time.
"Oh there was a disconnect order and they cut yours by mistake"
Ok how long until it's back?
"Four to six days"

Tried to be nice but had to go to vulgar mode to get it fixed and even then it took a day.

Eventually bought a house and went to satellite. Comcast tried very hard to get me to stay but it was satisfying to keep saying "No" And interesting to see how much they were willing to offer and time spent on the matter. Too bad they couldn't put that effort in their mistakes.

[Hurdergaryp]

I voted for Bernie.
If you've never been a customer of Comcast, then you don't know the horror. *eyes darting back and forth nervously, closes blinds*

Oh ok. See, I am terrible at telling when someone is being sarcastic on the internet.

That is going to complicate matters immensely for you, especially in NationStates General.

[New Jerzylvania]

They have no stats on the McMullin candidacy yet. Likely effect in Utah, maybe even NV and AZ which have significant Morman populations. MT is probably too red for it to matter, but it's an outside bc there's a bunch of Mormans there too. Clinton just won't get enough votes to hold up her end there. It may now have become Johnson's best shot.

Its not so much that I doubt Mormon country could flip. Its that going by the numbers, it would be a hell of an odd situation where all of the others I listed flipped and SC didn't, since SC looks like the next to flip in the nowcast.

Old saying: Figures lie and liars figure. No offense or reflection on you, but I think that old adage applies here a bit. I do worry about people lying to pollsters for one thing, but the lack of enough data is my main concern. It all adds up to the same thing... uncertainty. Guess I should look up Heisenberg about now!

[PaNTuXIa]

They have no stats on the McMullin candidacy yet. Likely effect in Utah, maybe even NV and AZ which have significant Morman populations. MT is probably too red for it to matter, but it's an outside bc there's a bunch of Mormans there too. Clinton just won't get enough votes to hold up her end there. It may now have become Johnson's best shot.

Its not so much that I doubt Mormon country could flip. Its that going by the numbers, it would be a hell of an odd situation where all of the others I listed flipped and SC didn't, since SC looks like the next to flip in the nowcast.

Well, I see South Carolina as the more blue-collar and Republican version of North Carolina, so, at least for now, I don't think Clinton will get many votes in SC. Montana, did however, flip to blue for Clinton's husband in 1992, and Montana is one of the states that libertarians usually do well in.