The 2016 US Presidential Election

[pandarilla]

Interesting, but conventional VP debate.

Kaine's smugness does not come over well, also looked like he was struggling to control his seethe. Repeatedly misrepresented/lied about Trump's positions/statements, and desperate in bringing up tax returns and Russian links over and over. Outright lied as with Shrillery about the mythical gender wage gap.

Very shaky start by Pence who looked like he was about to be trampled, but got stronger quickly as the debate progressed. Struggled at times to defend some of Trump's more controversial positions, and as with the first debate held back a lot of ammo I'm assuming for Trump to use in debates 2 and 3.

Pence takes it on points.

Giant pinch of salt required.

[pandarilla]

Who does strike you as "the sort of person" who would support Trump? An inbred redneck? Upwards of 40% of the US electorate will vote for Donald Trump. 40% of them do not fall into that category.

The superior attitude and denigration of anyone who bucks the trend, from the left and from the liberal media, is a massive factor in the rise of the right across the developed world. I was just as guilty as anyone throughout the EU referendum but nobody seems to be learning from it in the US.

Did you watch the trumpettes clip a few pages back? How else are you supposed to respond?

There are some genuine grievances but an awful lot of his support is a terrible indictment of the American education system.

[Ira Gaines]

Imagine supporting Trump idiots[emoji38]
I expected better of Paco

[welshbairn]

The problem Trump's got is that he thought he could get away with a couple of catch phrases like he did on the Apprentice. He admits it himself, if he starts to lose the audience at his rallies he says "Anyway, we'll build a wall, it will be beautiful, and the Mexicans will pay for it." Massive cheers from his fans, but everyone else thinks "what the f**k are you on about you fucking moron?". He can perform in front of a controlled and loyal audience but he won't have a clue what to do with a random audience asking him random questions on Sunday. It could be a beautiful implosion.

[vikingTON]

Who does strike you as "the sort of person" who would support Trump? An inbred redneck? Upwards of 40% of the US electorate will vote for Donald Trump. 40% of them do not fall into that category.

The superior attitude and denigration of anyone who bucks the trend, from the left and from the liberal media, is a massive factor in the rise of the right across the developed world. I was just as guilty as anyone throughout the EU referendum but nobody seems to be learning from it in the US.

The American right isn't even remotely "on the rise" champ. It has lost every single one of its endless battles over abortion and gay rights and has even been (modestly) rolled back on gun control and the US' hysterical attitude towards drugs. It hasn't had a Presidential winner since 2004 and all signs suggest that they'll fail this time as well.

It's losing while flailing out in a more bitter and anguished manner than before: gaining more white trash support and less support from the educated; making zero progress in the ever-growing non-white portion of the electorate. It can be rightly denigrated then because it is failing.

[Paco]

2 hours ago, pandarilla said:

Did you watch the trumpettes clip a few pages back? How else are you supposed to respond?

There are some genuine grievances but an awful lot of his support is a terrible indictment of the American education system.

Well of course there are a load of genuine nutcases amongst his support. You could say the same for virtually any political party or 'movement' - Scottish independence, for example, have supporters camping outside parliament refusing to move, calling Jesus to the witness stand. Are they representative of the SNP's support?

Rest assured Clinton has wacko supporters out there too. I accept Trump likely has more, but what does it actually matter? Are their views worth less if they don't have a degree? Do their votes count less at the polling booth? 

1 hour ago, Randy Giles said:

Imagine supporting Trump idiots
I expected better of Paco

For the avoidance of any doubt, I do not support Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton is a million miles right of my own political views. If you could actually pin Trump down on any policies, I imagine he'd be so far off he wouldn't register. 

The only point I'm really trying to make is the superiority coming from the left and the media in this election has caused far more harm than good. Clinton's mask slipped with the "deplorable" comment. She, like career politicians worldwide, wishes the horrible, uneducated people who 'just don't get it' would just turn out and vote for them rather than actually trying to hold them to account. Trump provides an alternative to that - the fact he'll have 40% plus of the country voting for him despite his thousands of comments that would derail any normal campaign shows the strength of the overall reaction to a) the political elite and b) the 'intellectual' elite of the media, corporations, etc. 

This isn't solely down to rednecks, just as Brexit wasn't solely down to racists.

[welshbairn]

You're right, it's down to the people who are so unimaginative that they think no one could be be worse than the status quo, as well as the thick and the racists.

[banana]

8 hours ago, pandarilla said:

Giant pinch of salt required.

Can't remember you saying that when I said Clinton won the first debate

The consensus even among the MSM is that Pence came out ahead.

[Arabdownunder]

Pretty sure a vice-presidential debate has never had any influence on the election result.

[Savage Henry]

Pretty sure a vice-presidential debate has never had any influence on the election result.

It hasn't. It has zero impact, other than in freak situations like Eagleton or the Dukakis one where the guy went all nuts. One of the reasons is that they aren't viewed as competitions, but rather more a relatively restrained analysis. Pollsters don't even always bother to ask about favourable impressions of VP debates.

[DrewDon]

No matter who or how numerous they may be, we should never be scared of calling people with bigoted views, supporting a bigoted candidate, bigots; or, in this case, calling people with deplorable views, supporting a deplorable candidate, deplorables. This isn't about thinking that you are 'superior' to Trump supporters, and it doesn't mean that you are part of 'the elite'. This just means that you are a half-decent person, perhaps occasionally looking out for the welfare of people and groups other than yourself and your own. 

Really, anybody still supporting Trump after his revolting comments about women, Mexicans, Muslims, refugees, and just about any other group he feels like stigmatising and/or insulting on any given day, warrants absolutely nothing but scorn. No remotely decent or compassionate person could, in all good conscience, vote for Donald Trump as President of the United States. With all the supporting evidence available, I'm not sure there should be anything too controversial about saying this. The only objectionable thing about Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment was the "half" part. I'm sure it's much, much more than that. 

[banana]

10 minutes ago, DrewDon said:

FTFY

[Zetterlund]

The vast majority of Trump supporters don't support him because of his policies, or because they're thicko racists. He's a protest vote. He could turn up to the next debates in a clown costume and roll around the stage on a unicycle and it wouldn't make much difference to his support - he still wouldn't be Hillary Clinton which is enough for a lot of people. Voting for her is a vote for, at best, more of the same, but probably worse. 

[Dunning1874]

7 hours ago, Paco said:

For the avoidance of any doubt, I do not support Donald Trump. Hillary Clinton is a million miles right of my own political views. If you could actually pin Trump down on any policies, I imagine he'd be so far off he wouldn't register. 

The only point I'm really trying to make is the superiority coming from the left and the media in this election has caused far more harm than good. Clinton's mask slipped with the "deplorable" comment. She, like career politicians worldwide, wishes the horrible, uneducated people who 'just don't get it' would just turn out and vote for them rather than actually trying to hold them to account. Trump provides an alternative to that - the fact he'll have 40% plus of the country voting for him despite his thousands of comments that would derail any normal campaign shows the strength of the overall reaction to a) the political elite and b) the 'intellectual' elite of the media, corporations, etc. 

This isn't solely down to rednecks, just as Brexit wasn't solely down to racists.

This is a valid point generally, that the centre and traditional left has ceased to represent the traditional working class, with no credible new left wing parties filling the void left by traditional left wing parties moving to the centre or disintegrating. That pattern is repeated across the West, with right-wing populism directly trying to appeal to the disenfranchised where no else does, although as VT says in the US the right is failing to appeal outside one demographic and is therefore going to continuing losing, unlike their concerning rise across Europe. Generally though, belittling those voters for drifting right as moronic idiots while ignoring the root causes of the rise of the right and the collapse of the left achieves nothing and only drives those voters further to the right, hence the rise of Front National and other openly racist and/or fascist parties.

In the case of Trump though, there's an additional facet here that means you can't possibly avoid characterising them as moronic. Of course it's stupid for the Democrats to actually use it as a line of attack as it does nothing to win voters back - I saw a bit of the DNC where someone giving a speech referred to Trump voters as 'know-nothings' throughout, which was total facepalm material as it is only going to make them less likely to reconsider and vote Democrat. I entirely agree with DrewDon above when he says all decent people should call out racists for racism and bigots for bigotry, so the Democrats should therefore call Trump these things regularly, but when you're trying to win his voters round to you don't call them all stupid and revel in how much more intelligent you think you are.

However, as an observer in a different country who doesn't need to pay lip service to win their votes, yes, they are stupid. They want to react against the elite and vote for an anti-establishment candidate, so they are voting for Donald Trump. There are few human beings on the planet who are more establishment than Donald Trump; not being a political elite doesn't mean you're not an elite. He's a tax dodging billionaire who was born into extreme wealth, has kept that extreme wealth and grown it at the expense of exactly those people who are voting for him to resist the establishment, using his lobbying influence and access to politicians to further his own ends. He's the epitome of the elite, he's every bit as establishment as Hillary Clinton and voting for him as an anti-establishment candidate can't be called anything but outrageously stupid.

[WaffenThinMint]

3 hours ago, banana said:

The consensus even among the MSM is that Pence came out ahead.

Correct, and the irony is that it has done Trump even more harm, because Pence wasn't defending Trump as he is, he was defending Trump as he would like him to be. He's the encapsulation of the Alice in Wonderland reality the Republicans are in where they're pretending to themselves as much as everyone else that Trump isn't a dime store demagogue unable (& unwilling) to differentiate between the behaviour he can get away with within Trump Tower and that within the White House are far removed.

For example, Pence rattled on about how Trump would be the only one with the guts to stand up to big bully Putin & his dangerous sabre rattling across the globe. Leaving the irony factor of this coming from the Presidential/vice-presidential candidates for the worst state on the planet for sticking their noses & flag where they don't belong, it is an open secret that Trump thinks of Putin as My Kinda Guy.

[Paco]

9 hours ago, welshbairn said:

You're right, it's down to the people who are so unimaginative that they think no one could be be worse than the status quo, as well as the thick and the racists.

A fair assessment. If things aren't great for someone personally they'll vote for change. This is why virtually all of the time, poorer areas vote for the biggest change - Brexit, Scottish independence, etc.. And who can blame them? The grass is always greener with a fresh idea.

2 hours ago, DrewDon said:

The only objectionable thing about Clinton's "basket of deplorables" comment was the "half" part. I'm sure it's much, much more than that. 

The media and even the Democratic candidate are happy to pontificate about how much better they are compared to these people. Trump is going to get, what, 60 million votes? One in five for every man, woman and child. If the US are at a stage where they're happy to pin that down to "deplorable" people and racists then their country is finished. 

Looking down on people for wanting to change the status quo, which isn't working for them, creates only a negative reaction. It's the reason we're out of the EU and a major factor in the move of Scottish independence being a fringe lunacy movement to mainstream and inevitable.

1 hour ago, Zetterlund said:

The vast majority of Trump supporters don't support him because of his policies, or because they're thicko racists. He's a protest vote. He could turn up to the next debates in a clown costume and roll around the stage on a unicycle and it wouldn't make much difference to his support - he still wouldn't be Hillary Clinton which is enough for a lot of people. Voting for her is a vote for, at best, more of the same, but probably worse. 

Correct. The good ol' USA is completely failing vast swathes of the country so Hillary Clinton, rightly, will not get their votes. They're misplacing them going for Trump but hey, what are the other options in a two-party state? 

1 hour ago, Dunning1874 said:

However, as an observer in a different country who doesn't need to pay lip service to win their votes, yes, they are stupid. They want to react against the elite and vote for an anti-establishment candidate, so they are voting for Donald Trump. There are few human beings on the planet who are more establishment than Donald Trump; not being a political elite doesn't mean you're not an elite. He's a tax dodging billionaire who was born into extreme wealth, has kept that extreme wealth and grown it at the expense of exactly those people who are voting for him to resist the establishment, using his lobbying influence and access to politicians to further his own ends. He's the epitome of the elite, he's every bit as establishment as Hillary Clinton and voting for him as an anti-establishment candidate can't be called anything but outrageously stupid.

I agree mostly with that but Trump isn't actually responsible for the situation many Americans find themselves in. Clinton is part of the system that is. If you're choosing between the cause of your issues and someone who's taken advantage of being one of the lucky few, and now claims he wants to change it, who do you go for? 

[Baxter Parp]

13 minutes ago, Paco said:

Correct. The good ol' USA is completely failing vast swathes of the country so Hillary Clinton, rightly, will not get their votes. They're misplacing them going for Trump but hey, what are the other options in a two-party state? 

In what way is Hilary Clinton to blame for the state of the US?

15 minutes ago, Paco said:

I agree mostly with that but Trump isn't actually responsible for the situation many Americans find themselves in. Clinton is part of the system that is. If you're choosing between the cause of your issues and someone who's taken advantage of being one of the lucky few, and now claims he wants to change it, who do you go for? 

In what way is the "billionaire" tax-avoider Donald Trump not part of the system? 

[Paco]

Just now, Baxter Parp said:

In what way is Hilary Clinton to blame for the state of the US?

In what way is the "billionaire" tax-avoider Donald Trump not part of the system? 

I never said she was. But she represents the ruling class that are.

I never said he wasn't, but he clearly isn't part of the political 'system'.

[Baxter Parp]

10 minutes ago, Paco said:

I never said she was. But she represents the ruling class that are.

You tried to give that impression and now you have to explain to whom does she represent the ruling class (in a supposedly classless society) and why?

11 minutes ago, Paco said:

I never said he wasn't, but he clearly isn't part of the political 'system'.

Again, you tried to give that impression and you'll have to explain how the political "system" is different from the financial "system" that he is clearly a part of and how running for office but losing makes you apart from the political "system"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump#Involvement_in_politics.2C_1988.E2.80.932015

[Savage Henry]

The vast majority of Trump supporters don't support him because of his policies, or because they're thicko racists. He's a protest vote. He could turn up to the next debates in a clown costume and roll around the stage on a unicycle and it wouldn't make much difference to his support - he still wouldn't be Hillary Clinton which is enough for a lot of people. Voting for her is a vote for, at best, more of the same, but probably worse. 

People don't excuse misogyny and racism just to make a protest. If people are discerning enough to say "no more conventional politics", they are discerning enough to see through Trump. No, it's far deeper and far darker than you make out.