US Gen. Election Thread V: The Hunt for Red October Surprise

[The Romulan Republic]

TX students are blue, I don't think I've ever been so proud of my fellow young Texans before.
*sniff* I think I have something in my eye.

Texas students are more educated than I was, and that is a good thing.

This bodes well for the future of the Democratic Party.

Actually, if this is the same map I saw earlier, I believe that we would flip NC, Arizona, Georgia, Alaska, Texas, Missouri, Indiana, Utah, and Idaho.

Glorious.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Texas students are more educated than I was, and that is a good thing.

This bodes well for the future of the Democratic Party.

Actually, if this is the same map I saw earlier, I believe that we would flip NC, Arizona, Georgia, Alaska, Texas, Missouri, Indiana, Utah, and Idaho.

Glorious.

I would prefer if Texas and the rest of the nation became an independent voter nation, to vote for the best candidate regardless of party affiliation, and for every state to be a swing state, but you can't win them all.

[The Romulan Republic]

This bodes well for the future of the Democratic Party.

Actually, if this is the same map I saw earlier, I believe that we would flip NC, Arizona, Georgia, Alaska, Texas, Missouri, Indiana, Utah, and Idaho.

Glorious.

I would prefer if Texas and the rest of the nation became an independent voter nation, to vote for the best candidate regardless of party affiliation, and for every state to be a swing state, but you can't win them all.

Well in this case, the best candidate is inarguably a Democrat.

[Hittanryan]

Not sure what prompted me to look this up, but it's amusing now watching FOX News' fair and balanced coverage of the 2010 Iraq War leak. They certainly weren't calling for more coverage on WikiLeaks back when it was about them, were they?

[Galloism]

I spy with my little eye... an actual policy from the Trump campaign?

Term limits and anti-corruption laws. Of course, how it's done is even more important than what is done, probably, but I *do* like those lobbying limits.

Not that I would elect a narcissistic child to get them, of course.

[Hittanryan]

I spy with my little eye... an actual policy from the Trump campaign?

Term limits and anti-corruption laws. Of course, how it's done is even more important than what is done, probably, but I *do* like those lobbying limits.

Not that I would elect a narcissistic child to get them, of course.

I'd be willing to bet he's only talking about Congressional term limits and restrictions on lobbying because he wants to get back at Republican Congressmen who withdrew their endorsements of him. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing the current crop of Congressmen lose their jobs and their fallback plans to lobby for special interests, they've been doing shitty work for 6 years and don't deserve to keep their seats.

He'll probably change his mind on the subject by next week regardless.

[Galloism]

I spy with my little eye... an actual policy from the Trump campaign?

Term limits and anti-corruption laws. Of course, how it's done is even more important than what is done, probably, but I *do* like those lobbying limits.

Not that I would elect a narcissistic child to get them, of course.

I'd be willing to bet he's only talking about Congressional term limits and restrictions on lobbying because he wants to get back at Republican Congressmen who withdrew their endorsements of him.

He'll probably change his mind on the subject by next week regardless.

Well, and that's just it - in a race with Hillary Clinton, he's so much more dishonest than his opponent I can't even quantify it. At this point, if he said the sun was going to rise tomorrow, "believe me", I'd question it.

[Hittanryan]

I'd be willing to bet he's only talking about Congressional term limits and restrictions on lobbying because he wants to get back at Republican Congressmen who withdrew their endorsements of him.

He'll probably change his mind on the subject by next week regardless.

Well, and that's just it - in a race with Hillary Clinton, he's so much more dishonest than his opponent I can't even quantify it. At this point, if he said the sun was going to rise tomorrow, "believe me", I'd question it.

That's why I've been saying all year that he has no policy platform. He'll say one thing and then take it back or contradict himself within a week.

I wouldn't mind seeing some term limits, although I've spoken to people from states with term limits in their state legislature and they say the resulting "amateur government" has actually caused some problems. There's also the issue of legislators being less accountable during their final term since they don't have to worry about reelection.

Perhaps consecutive term limits would be better? Say you can run twice then you need to give it up for two terms. That way if you did a good job, you can run on your record in the primary. The legislature as a whole could retain experience this way as well.

[Eol Sha]

I'd like to know when you decided to switch from Paul to Sanders.

*snip*

You're like Soldati, UTP. Giving me all this shit to read when I'm half asleep.

Thanks for the share, though. I appreciate it.

[The first Galactic Republic]

So Hillary Clinton could be the first f president.

Whoops. Looks like the emale got deleted. nyak nyak nyak

[Galloism]

So Hillary Clinton could be the first f president.

Whoops. Looks like the emale got deleted. nyak nyak nyak

Boo! Boo!

[Corrian]

What the map would look like if children voted.

You know, this is a good way to segway into something I have been thinking about. Not something I know if it should actually be a legitimate thing, but just as an interesting topic. What would you all think of having high school students (14 to 18) be able to vote as well? I get the whole, you're an adult now, you should be allowed to vote, and be ready for some experience and whatnot, but I can see a legitimate argument in that high school students should maybe be able to have a say in their future.

Also, to add a bit more on, do you think if high school students COULD vote, hypothetically, Sanders could have won? Because I would guess Sanders had a lot of support among high school students.

[Vassenor]

Oh yeah, remember how people were trying to claim Trump is in favour of LGBT rights?

Yeah, no.

[New West Guiana]

What the map would look like if children voted.

Well Iowa kids get a big fat F. Shameful.

[Mad hatters in jeans]

What the map would look like if children voted.

You know, this is a good way to segway into something I have been thinking about. Not something I know if it should actually be a legitimate thing, but just as an interesting topic. What would you all think of having high school students (14 to 18) be able to vote as well? I get the whole, you're an adult now, you should be allowed to vote, and be ready for some experience and whatnot, but I can see a legitimate argument in that high school students should maybe be able to have a say in their future.

Also, to add a bit more on, do you think if high school students COULD vote, hypothetically, Sanders could have won? Because I would guess Sanders had a lot of support among high school students.

What if they enabled the 14-16 year olds to vote but their votes were worth half as much as the adult vote? And 17-18 three quarters value.
They're still developing and have an understanding of politics but perhaps some of the younger members live in isolated communities, it's not until adulthood hits that you really begin to appreciate what effects policies may have.

By the same token folks over the age of 75 should only have a three quarters value on their vote. Over 95 and it goes down to half. Many old folks are simply too insulated from the world to even begin to understand some of the new policies and the effects they will have on a developing nation.

Maybe have a tiered system for felons Not sure how it would be divided but something like
zero for serious offences
quarter for less serious
half then three quarters for minor offences.

*edit numbers

[AiliailiA]

I actually asked an almost identical question in April of 2015, during the very beginning of the Primary Season. I didn't anticipate dead Scalia, so I missed that. Bernie Sanders was in the low single digits, Jeb Bush and Scott Walker were battling for the #1 spot in the GOP Primary, and Barack Obama had approval in the 40s. It almost seems like an eternity ago. Anyway, something told me that this would be a strange election season and I thought it would only be because of the large GOP primary...but anyway, I was curious to how our views of the issues would shift as time went on. Here's a link to the original thread, and here are the results...

Healthcare: 14/400
Foreign Policy (ISIL,Iran,Yemen,Russia etc.): 134/400
Debt/Deficit: 22/400
Economy (Unemployment,Wages,Trade, Taxes etc): 119/400
Immigration: 15/400
Climate Change: 24/400
Civil Rights & Civil Liberties: 55/400
Other: 13/400

It's just interesting to look at the current poll and compare the results. See what groups have grown and others shrunk. There was also a separate question. Because the Thread was focused on the announcement of HRC.
Do you support Hillary Clinton?
Yes, I support Hillary Clinton: 172/472
No, I do not support Hillary Clinton: 300/472

Now that question was answered by Liberals and Conservatives, but given the lean of NS is pretty liberal, it seems clear the opposition to HRC started early and wasn't dependent on Bernie Sanders who was not yet in the race. Whether or not that opposition has subsided, that is...for another poll.

EDIT: wow, it's weird to go back and read that OP

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/10/exclusive-hillary-clinton-to-launch-presidential-campaign-sunday-en-route-to-iowa-source

Here it comes, what we've all been waiting for since she lost the nomination to Sen. Obama back in 2008. The suspense, the will she or won't she; will finally come to an end this Sunday. Everything she's done since 2008 has just been prep for 2016, and now....the blood bath begins. I'm currently supporting Sen. Paul in the primaries, but let's be real. It's seems like an inevitability that the 45th President of these United States will be Hillary Clinton. There isn't a Republican in America who could take her down. That's just my opinion after reading polls for 2 years, and looking over the crop of candidates from both sides. There isn't a young, charismatic, minority, articulate, fresh faced senator to come from behind and take the nomination. This is hers to win, and she's about to start the long journey to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

But I could be wrong. I think it's unlikely, but we're overdue for a political earthquake. What does NS think? Will Lewinsky, White Water, Benghazi, Hillarycare, and the e-mails come back to bite Clinton?

All of the Edit is put in a spoiler. I'm just going to help out on this point about how NSG opinion has changed since April 2015.

With a table!

Issue	NSG Apr '15	April '15	NSG Oct '16	October '16
	(of 400)		(of 192)
Healthcare	14	3.5%	4	2.1%
Climate Change	24	6.0%	24	12.5%
Immigration	15	3.8%	15	7.8%
Foreign Policy	134	33.5%	27	14.1%
Economy	119	29.8%	51	26.6%
Debt	22	5.5%		–
Taxes		–	2	1.0%
Crime		–	3	1.6%
Supreme Court		–	23	12.0%
Civil Rights/Liberties	55	13.8%	28	14.6%
Other	13	3.3%	15	7.8%

Trump has raised the profile of Immigration only slightly. Law and Order isn't playing at all with the NSG population.

Trump's massive tax cut proposals, and Clinton's proposed tax increases, also are not election issues. Though (my guess) debt might still matter, and how you ask that question ("debt is an issue" or "taxes are an issue") makes a lot of difference to whether people rate it the most important issue: cutting or raising taxes is only half of the issue of government debt.

Foreign Policy seems to matter less now? That's odd. Even more surprising is the jump in concern about Climate Change. It's almost as though the less the candidates say about an issue, the more NSG cares about the issue ...

[The Romulan Republic]

The massive foreign policy drop is rather shocking, in light of everything going on with Russia, Syria, and Daesh lately.

I could understand if it was accompanied by, say, a proportional increase in people prioritizing Civil Liberties, given Trump. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Tsaraine]

For me, at least, this election is hardly about policy issues at all. It's about the fact that Donald Trump is manifestly unfit to run a toll booth, let alone the most powerful office in the world. He's just ... not competent for the job, and policy considerations are a distant second to that.

[The Romulan Republic]

For me, at least, this election is hardly about policy issues at all. It's about the fact that Donald Trump is manifestly unfit to run a toll booth, let alone the most powerful office in the world. He's just ... not competent for the job, and policy considerations are a distant second to that.

Their is increasing evidence that Donald Trump is manifestly unfit to be a free man. If he weren't so rich, I suspect his crimes would have caught up with him by now.

[Philjia]

For me, at least, this election is hardly about policy issues at all. It's about the fact that Donald Trump is manifestly unfit to run a toll booth, let alone the most powerful office in the world. He's just ... not competent for the job, and policy considerations are a distant second to that.

Obama said he wasn't fit to be employed in a 7/11. But since Obama is a communist Muslim Kenyan and Hillary is an Illuminati lizard person in the big pocket of Wall Street who's going to take away your guns and force everybody to be a transgender lesbian, plenty of people will still vote Trump.

[The Romulan Republic]

I spy with my little eye... an actual policy from the Trump campaign?

Term limits and anti-corruption laws. Of course, how it's done is even more important than what is done, probably, but I *do* like those lobbying limits.

Not that I would elect a narcissistic child to get them, of course.

I'd be willing to bet he's only talking about Congressional term limits and restrictions on lobbying because he wants to get back at Republican Congressmen who withdrew their endorsements of him. Personally I wouldn't mind seeing the current crop of Congressmen lose their jobs and their fallback plans to lobby for special interests, they've been doing shitty work for 6 years and don't deserve to keep their seats.

He'll probably change his mind on the subject by next week regardless.

Yeah, this sounds like a continuation of his threats of political purges (in this case "throw out of office all the Congressmen who don't like me"), more than something that he should be given credit for.

And personally, while attacking Congress is an easy way to score cheap points, I don't really approve of term limits. I'd even probably be up for a constitutional amendment to remove them from the Presidency again. It seems to me that if the people want to reelect someone, they should have that freedom, and to not permit it is undemocratic.

Remember: Congress as a whole may be unpopular, but their are a lot of individual Congressmen who aren't unpopular with their constituents. Its the gridlock, more than their own representatives, that people seem to be angry at. And replacing all the current Congressmembers won't make partisanship, or structural problems like the filibuster, disappear.

[Tsaraine]

For me, at least, this election is hardly about policy issues at all. It's about the fact that Donald Trump is manifestly unfit to run a toll booth, let alone the most powerful office in the world. He's just ... not competent for the job, and policy considerations are a distant second to that.

Their is increasing evidence that Donald Trump is manifestly unfit to be a free man. If he weren't so rich, I suspect his crimes would have caught up with him by now.

I agree, and I think that, if (god willing) he doesn't get elected, he's going to have a hard time avoiding all the chickens coming home to roost. It'll just be a pile of birds atop his terrible terrible hair.

But at the same time, there's a risk that saying "Donald Trump deserves to be locked up" is just a mirror of the "lock her up!" chant of the gullibles and deplorables. Granted it's not like Hillary has said that Donald will be imprisoned if she wins, but still. Both sides are expecting that the opponent will be imprisoned if their side wins, and that's deeply weird and scary.

[The Romulan Republic]

Their is increasing evidence that Donald Trump is manifestly unfit to be a free man. If he weren't so rich, I suspect his crimes would have caught up with him by now.

I agree, and I think that, if (god willing) he doesn't get elected, he's going to have a hard time avoiding all the chickens coming home to roost. It'll just be a pile of birds atop his terrible terrible hair.

But at the same time, there's a risk that saying "Donald Trump deserves to be locked up" is just a mirror of the "lock her up!" chant of the gullibles and deplorables. Granted it's not like Hillary has said that Donald will be imprisoned if she wins, but still. Both sides are expecting that the opponent will be imprisoned if their side wins, and that's deeply weird and scary.

Its not remotely the same, not in this case at least.

A lot of the accusations against Clinton (more so than Trump, or at least that's the impression I get) are more nebulous and/or things she has been investigated for and cleared for, often by hostile partisan investigations no less.

But even aside from that, their is a world of difference between someone on the internet saying that Donald Trump is probably a criminal who should be in jail, and a major Presidential candidate threatening to throw his political opponent in prison regardless of their not having been proven guilty.

That's getting into the real of dictatorial political purges. Of course Clinton hasn't threatened that, because she's sane.

[Philjia]

Stephen Colbert uncovers the source of the conspiracy against Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35gzCtLHO3A

[AiliailiA]

The massive foreign policy drop is rather shocking, in light of everything going on with Russia, Syria, and Daesh lately.

I could understand if it was accompanied by, say, a proportional increase in people prioritizing Civil Liberties, given Trump. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

Actually some increase in Civil Liberties. Consider the issue which was introduced (Supreme Court) which roughly takes 12% from every other category.

Further consider that putting "supreme court" in the poll invokes a power of the President which is rather specific to civil rights and civil liberties ... it's quite possible that concern for "civil rights and civil liberties" has increased significantly but some of that has gone to the new option "supreme court". If all of it went to the new option, concern about civil rights and liberties would have nearly doubled.

Or to put it another way, if the Supreme Court option wasn't there to split the vote, I think "civil rights and civil liberties" as a catch-all would have increased significantly. Not doubled, but maybe up from 14% to 20%.

The Supreme Court doesn't have much to do with foreign policy though. Neither of the other introduced options (taxes and crime) have much to do with foreign policy. That concern has plainly fallen ... perhaps on that subject NSG considers neither Trump nor Clinton to be much good.

Maybe NSG polls even reflects the US as a whole, turned inwards at least temporarily (soul-searching if you will) and less concerned about whether foreigners get bombed or not.

Finally let me note that "Trade" as a component of the "Economy" option was in both polls, but it isn't just about the US economy. Trade is a vital aspect of foreign policy, too: Trump with his trade war ideas may have moved some poll respondents from "foreign policy" to "economy" in the last 16 months.