US General Election Thread IV: The Beginning of the End

[Corrian]

Ah, I remember the days when Clinton had a 90%+ chance in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, and people talked of flipping Georgia, Missouri, or Arizona.

Well. That looks more difficult now.

My dreams of a blue Georgia, Missouri, and Arizona are being crushed

And of a landslide victory...which is kinda scary to be honest. I really don't want this election to be close.

[Khadgar]

..Aaand the truth comes out: http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/pre ... to-release

"Donald Trump Jr. on Wednesday defended his father's decision not to release his tax returns, saying scrutiny of the documents would distract from his campaign message."

Nothing to do with an audit. It's just that putting sunlight on potentially shady things on Trump's tax returns would be...distracting.

I suspect telling the truth was entirely accidental.

[Ifreann]

Like, seriously, this whole thing where anyone can vote for who gets to lead a party is sort of crazy. Would I want a Conservative picking a leader for the NDP? No, that would be stupid.

That's my objection to open primaries. It seems bizarre to me that a party would give a registered voter of the other party any say in who their own candidate will be. Being registered to the other party, it's a reasonable assumption they will vote against the candidate in the general, so they'll prefer the candidate easiest to beat ... which isn't in that party's interest.

But I'd allow parties to hold open primaries if they wanted. Or not hold primaries at all.

Most of those dumb caucuses this year, were because state law set conditions for primaries which were unacceptable to one or the other party (for instance being too early for the DNC's rules) and in some cases state governments had actually abolished primaries for President. That's such rubbish: if the two major parties can agree on a date the state should hold a primary for both on the same day, and if they can't agree the state should pay more and hold two separate primaries. Each state party branch should decide for itself whether its primary is open, semi-closed or closed, whether felons can vote etc. The primary is the party's election, those terms should not be set by the state.

What possible justification could a state have for legislating how political parties conduct their internal affairs?

[Khadgar]

Ah, I remember the days when Clinton had a 90%+ chance in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, and people talked of flipping Georgia, Missouri, or Arizona.

Well. That looks more difficult now.

My dreams of a blue Georgia, Missouri, and Arizona are being crushed :(

And of a landslide victory...which is kinda scary to be honest. I really don't want this election to be close.

Trump has had a few days of no huge missteps (that have been reported on any rate) so his polling goes up. Apparently if you don't remind people constantly that Trump is really fucking horrible they begin to forget.

[Ashmoria]

Ah, I remember the days when Clinton had a 90%+ chance in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, and people talked of flipping Georgia, Missouri, or Arizona.

Well. That looks more difficult now.

she becomes president just as much at 271 electoral votes as at 400.

but it would be great if we could flip a few red states. *sigh*

[Atlanticatia]

Ah, I remember the days when Clinton had a 90%+ chance in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, and people talked of flipping Georgia, Missouri, or Arizona.

Well. That looks more difficult now.

she becomes president just as much at 271 electoral votes as at 400.

but it would be great if we could flip a few red states. *sigh*

It's also about the size of the 'mandate' and downballot races. We need a Democratic senate to be ushered in with Hillary Clinton's election.

[Ashmoria]

she becomes president just as much at 271 electoral votes as at 400.

but it would be great if we could flip a few red states. *sigh*

It's also about the size of the 'mandate' and downballot races. We need a Democratic senate to be ushered in with Hillary Clinton's election.

yeah I'm upset that rob portman is solidly ahead.

[Community Values]

No one deserves their party to be in both the senate and the presidency. I hope if Hillary is president, republicans maintain majority, and if Trump is president, democrats gain majority. No one deserves to face the majority of their idiotic ideals.

[Yasuragi]

Ah, I remember the days when Clinton had a 90%+ chance in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, and people talked of flipping Georgia, Missouri, or Arizona.

Well. That looks more difficult now.

My dreams of a blue Georgia, Missouri, and Arizona are being crushed

And of a landslide victory...which is kinda scary to be honest. I really don't want this election to be close.

Probably is going to be.

My dreams of a blue Georgia, Missouri, and Arizona are being crushed

And of a landslide victory...which is kinda scary to be honest. I really don't want this election to be close.

Trump has had a few days of no huge missteps (that have been reported on any rate) so his polling goes up. Apparently if you don't remind people constantly that Trump is really fucking horrible they begin to forget.

I don't think it's much of "Trump not making mistakes" but more "Clinton getting slammed," what with her 9/11 fainting spell, and then the DNC leaks every few weeks. Besides, he has made missteps -- like his speech in Flint, that the pastor interrupted.

Ah, I remember the days when Clinton had a 90%+ chance in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, and people talked of flipping Georgia, Missouri, or Arizona.

Well. That looks more difficult now.

she becomes president just as much at 271 electoral votes as at 400.

but it would be great if we could flip a few red states. *sigh*

Not nowadays. If you win with 271 electoral votes, you're only President of ~50% of the country -- or so your opponents will claim nowadays.

[Thermodolia]

What really matters is if the GOTV campaigns are successful. The polling could say whatever it wants, but if either party doesn't have a ground game they aren't going to win. Also remember that around this time four years ago Romney was near to or over, I can't remember which, Obama in the polls and he still lost.

[Thermodolia]

No one deserves their party to be in both the senate and the presidency. I hope if Hillary is president, republicans maintain majority, and if Trump is president, democrats gain majority. No one deserves to face the majority of their idiotic ideals.

So you want a broke dick congress?

[Community Values]

No one deserves their party to be in both the senate and the presidency. I hope if Hillary is president, republicans maintain majority, and if Trump is president, democrats gain majority. No one deserves to face the majority of their idiotic ideals.

So you want a broke dick congress?

Yeah, gridlock is better than either of these two shit candidates.

They'll probably bypass congress anyhow

[Washington Resistance Army]

No one deserves their party to be in both the senate and the presidency. I hope if Hillary is president, republicans maintain majority, and if Trump is president, democrats gain majority. No one deserves to face the majority of their idiotic ideals.

So you want a broke dick congress?

Less time spent doing things is less time spent screwing things up.

[Thermodolia]

My dreams of a blue Georgia, Missouri, and Arizona are being crushed

And of a landslide victory...which is kinda scary to be honest. I really don't want this election to be close.

Probably is going to be.

Trump has had a few days of no huge missteps (that have been reported on any rate) so his polling goes up. Apparently if you don't remind people constantly that Trump is really fucking horrible they begin to forget.

I don't think it's much of "Trump not making mistakes" but more "Clinton getting slammed," what with her 9/11 fainting spell, and then the DNC leaks every few weeks. Besides, he has made missteps -- like his speech in Flint, that the pastor interrupted.

The media hasn't helped. The DNC leaks happened a while back but the media continues to act like they just happened. The media hasn't been giving Hillary a break unlike Trump with CNN openly admitting that they went soft on him because he's a first time politician. If the race is going to be close it will because the media made it so all for their quest of higher ratings.

[Valaran]

So you want a broke dick congress?

Yeah, gridlock is better than either of these two shit candidates.

They'll probably bypass congress anyhow

Gridlock arguably only encourages anger at the system, and the nomination of even more 'outsiders'. On the practical level, it can and does hinder actual governance, which hurts the US, and the people in it. Moreover, extensive bypassing of congress in the long run can undermine the system, so its not exalcty something to favour either.

This is not so say that one party controlling everything would not do the same, but this is the default effect of gridlock. By definition, gridlock obstructs any legislative progress and one of its hallmark effects is rising frustration.

Now, if there was no or more limited partisanship I might be more accepting of this view. But the fact of matter is that both sides are resolutely opposed to one another, and that this isn't about to change. Thus, gridlock has the above adverse effects. I don't see how this is espcially advisable.

[Thermodolia]

Yeah, gridlock is better than either of these two shit candidates.

They'll probably bypass congress anyhow

Gridlock arguably only encourages anger at the system, and the nomination of even more 'outsiders'. On the practical level, it can and does hinder actual governance, which hurts the US, and the people in it. Moreover, extensive bypassing of congress in the long run can undermine the system, so its not exalcty something to favour either.

This is not so say that one party controlling everything would not do the same, but this is the default effect of gridlock. By definition, gridlock obstructs any legislative progress and one of its hallmark effects is rising frustration.

Now, if there was no or more limited partisanship I might be more accepting of this view. But the fact of matter is that both sides are resolutely opposed to one another, and that this isn't about to change. Thus, gridlock has the above adverse effects. I don't see how this is espcially advisable.

Not to mention that from now on out if the president's party doesn't control the senate no judges will get approved.

[Community Values]

Yeah, gridlock is better than either of these two shit candidates.

They'll probably bypass congress anyhow

Gridlock arguably only encourages anger at the system, and the nomination of even more 'outsiders'. On the practical level, it can and does hinder actual governance, which hurts the US, and the people in it. Moreover, extensive bypassing of congress in the long run can undermine the system, so its not exalcty something to favour either.

This is not so say that one party controlling everything would not do the same, but this is the default effect of gridlock. By definition, gridlock obstructs any legislative progress and one of its hallmark effects is rising frustration.

Now, if there was no or more limited partisanship I might be more accepting of this view. But the fact of matter is that both sides are resolutely opposed to one another, and that this isn't about to change. Thus, gridlock has the above adverse effects. I don't see how this is espcially advisable.

Eh, I can see your point. But doesn't gridlock also encourage compromise?

[Atlanticatia]

I feel like a good way for Hillary to get a bit of her mojo back and shore up her left flank would be to come out forcefully against DAPL. It would get her some positive accolades from the Bernie wing of the party and might improve the news cycle a bit for her. She needs more enthusiasm behind her candidacy to look even stronger against Trump.

[Senkaku]

So you want a broke dick congress?

Yeah, gridlock is better than either of these two shit candidates.

They'll probably bypass congress anyhow

"What do we want?"
"More of the same!"
"When do we want it?"
"For the foreseeable future!"

[Valaran]

Eh, I can see your point. But doesn't gridlock also encourage compromise?

Ideally.

I think your point would have been a lot more valid before, say, the 90s, which is arguably when the Parties stopped compromising. Since then, there focus has been pandering to one's base, which coupled with maybe a dozen other trends (everything from gerrymandering to diverging platforms of social issues) has made compromise rather unlikely on most issues.

In other words, I would like your point to be true, and it was true.

[Atlanticatia]

No one deserves their party to be in both the senate and the presidency. I hope if Hillary is president, republicans maintain majority, and if Trump is president, democrats gain majority. No one deserves to face the majority of their idiotic ideals.

'hur dur both sides are equally bad' is really not a valid point this election. Unless you want Peter Thiel on the Supreme Court. This will just lead to gridlock.

[Alvecia]

Eh, I can see your point. But doesn't gridlock also encourage compromise?

Ideally.

I think your point would have been a lot more valid before, say, the 90s, which is arguably when the Parties stopped compromising. Since then, there focus has been pandering to one's base, which coupled with maybe a dozen other trends (everything from gerrymandering to diverging platforms of social issues) has made compromise rather unlikely on most issues.

In other words, I would like your point to be true, and it was true.

These days it seems "compromise" has become a dirty word

[Washington Resistance Army]

Ideally.

I think your point would have been a lot more valid before, say, the 90s, which is arguably when the Parties stopped compromising. Since then, there focus has been pandering to one's base, which coupled with maybe a dozen other trends (everything from gerrymandering to diverging platforms of social issues) has made compromise rather unlikely on most issues.

In other words, I would like your point to be true, and it was true.

These days it seems "compromise" has become a dirty word

It really has, nobody wants to work together nowadays.

[Major-Tom]

Ah, I remember the days when Clinton had a 90%+ chance in the FiveThirtyEight forecast, and people talked of flipping Georgia, Missouri, or Arizona.

Well. That looks more difficult now.

My dreams of a blue Georgia, Missouri, and Arizona are being crushed

And of a landslide victory...which is kinda scary to be honest. I really don't want this election to be close.

You know it'll be close. I said from the start that blue Georgias, Missouris, Arizonas, and even North Carolinas are pipedreams.

[Community Values]

No one deserves their party to be in both the senate and the presidency. I hope if Hillary is president, republicans maintain majority, and if Trump is president, democrats gain majority. No one deserves to face the majority of their idiotic ideals.

'hur dur both sides are equally bad' is really not a valid point this election. Unless you want Peter Thiel on the Supreme Court. This will just lead to gridlock.

They aren't equally bad, it's obvious Hillary is better. It's just that she's shit too.