The 2016 US Presidential Election

[pandarilla]

Clinton will be more dangerous for global stability than Trump. Trump says he wants to do outrageous things domestically but realistically he wont be able to deliver them, while Hillary will want to continue America's outrageous foreign policy and be backed all the way.

If Hillary wins I'm investing my life savings into Iranian and Russian bomb shelter manufacturers.

Continuing?

Has Obama not been fairly reasonable in terms of foreign affairs? Deal done with Iran (which Hilary was heavily involved in too) and seems to have withdrawn a bit from the other wars in the region.

[Savage Henry]

Continuing?

Has Obama not been fairly reasonable in terms of foreign affairs? Deal done with Iran (which Hilary was heavily involved in too) and seems to have withdrawn a bit from the other wars in the region.

A much softer foreign policy has been highly effective in protecting US interests. Kerry was a good appointment.

[Zetterlund]

13 minutes ago, pandarilla said:

Continuing?

Has Obama not been fairly reasonable in terms of foreign affairs? Deal done with Iran (which Hilary was heavily involved in too) and seems to have withdrawn a bit from the other wars in the region.

 

 

Continuing the post-9/11 policy of Bush/Obama and Clinton herself as secretary of state. Obama himself doesn't come across as hawkish but his administration has overseen its fair share of disastrous interventions.

[NotThePars]

4 hours ago, Alan Stubbs said:

....on the debates, you would think that this is where Trump will come unstuck but we seem to be in a time where a lack of knowledge and coherent plans seems to be congratulated by electorates.

I'm anticipating lots of statements like "Hillary may know what the capital of Pakistan is but it hasn't stopped us getting crushed out there" and it going down a storm.

I really think Trump is going to trounce Clinton in the debates. He will focus hard on the economy, attack Clinton and the Democrats for killing industry and jobs in the US and I doubt she'll have much of a response to this. This coupled with constantly hammering home the corruption angle and the rebellion against the bureaucratic elites and Trump genuinely has a chance, I think.

 

[pandarilla]

A much softer foreign policy has been highly effective in protecting US interests. Kerry was a good appointment.

Would you expect Clinton to change this?

I reckon she'd want to show some strength to quell the doubters - but other than that she's a smart woman who understands the importance of diplomacy.

[Savage Henry]

Would you expect Clinton to change this?

I reckon she'd want to show some strength to quell the doubters - but other than that she's a smart woman who understands the importance of diplomacy.

She's not a hawk, although she might not be as patient as Obama was. His big things were always overseas education and healthcare. For Clinton, the Benghazi thing was overplayed, I think.

Does she value the soft policy approach? All depends on who she appoints as Secretary of State, which has arguably been Obama's greatest success. Once you start seeing where the funding gets directed, we'll know the answer to that. Obama redirected a fair amount in the educational, soft power direction.

I would totally expect Trump to change it. I have an inclination he has no idea what the State department actually does. I could see him cutting billions there.

[Paco]

1 hour ago, NotThePars said:

I really think Trump is going to trounce Clinton in the debates. He will focus hard on the economy, attack Clinton and the Democrats for killing industry and jobs in the US and I doubt she'll have much of a response to this. This coupled with constantly hammering home the corruption angle and the rebellion against the bureaucratic elites and Trump genuinely has a chance, I think.

 

Would have to agree with that. Trump would hold the upper hand on all aspects because, er, he's totally right about it. A big advantage of not being a career politician I suppose is not being tainted with issues like Iraq, Benghazi, NAFTA, email leaks, etc.

Even on policy while Trump is light in the extreme on detail he says things that appeal to people straight away. Immigration comes up, he'll mention getting illegals out and preventing terrorists coming in. The economy comes up, he'll mention imposing tariffs on greedy corporations outsourcing labour and getting jobs back to the US. Foreign policy comes up, he'll mention obliterating ISIS and getting other NATO countries to stop leeching off US military might.

How many Americans are immediately against any of those things? Obviously he follows this up with next to no detail but to a casual TV audience, up against a woman who Trump will tell them has helped create ISIS, killed American industry, is 'careless' with classified information and is in the pocket of Wall Street, he could very easily come out of a debate looking very good indeed.

Or, he could fluff his first question and start making sexist remarks to Megyn Kelly again. Who really knows? One thing's for sure. The debates will be box office...

[NotThePars]

The only reason Trump isn't winning more is cause of the sexist and bigoted shite he spouts tbh. I'll be surprised if his outrageous opinions will be that big a focus what with Wikileaks and so on regularly dredging up more shite about Clinton. Kudos to the States for managing to have an even worse political situation than us after the year we've had.

[banana]

15 hours ago, Monkey Tennis said:

I'm perfectly comfortable with the moral superiority of my take on this.

Given what's potentially at stake, I consider your view indulgent and indeed, irresponsible.

Your choice, and I go back to my comments earlier and in the last year about the rise of Trump being fueled by this attitude/behavior towards 'wrong' opinions.

We will no doubt again see your type once again shirking responsibility and throwing infantile wobblies as with Brexit should he be elected.

[banana]

7 hours ago, Paco said:

Would have to agree with that. Trump would hold the upper hand on all aspects because, er, he's totally right about it. A big advantage of not being a career politician I suppose is not being tainted with issues like Iraq, Benghazi, NAFTA, email leaks, etc.

Even on policy while Trump is light in the extreme on detail he says things that appeal to people straight away. Immigration comes up, he'll mention getting illegals out and preventing terrorists coming in. The economy comes up, he'll mention imposing tariffs on greedy corporations outsourcing labour and getting jobs back to the US. Foreign policy comes up, he'll mention obliterating ISIS and getting other NATO countries to stop leeching off US military might.

How many Americans are immediately against any of those things? Obviously he follows this up with next to no detail but to a casual TV audience, up against a woman who Trump will tell them has helped create ISIS, killed American industry, is 'careless' with classified information and is in the pocket of Wall Street, he could very easily come out of a debate looking very good indeed.

There's a long way to go yet until the debates, but I roughly agree with this assessment. His core messages will be simple, appealing, and largely unspun, he'll trip up due to his ad-libbing style a few times, but he'll come out ahead of a highly polished Clinton approach.

I think the effect of the latest Wikileaks will subside in terms of Trump's popularity in the polls, and Clinton's unpopularity. Having said that, according to Assange there are more leaks to come which will derail if not imprison Clinton. Must be monumental and unequivocal for her not to be able to slither out of.

Absolute scenes when Sanders addressed his supporters telling them to vote Clinton Will be fascinating now to see the resultant number of crossovers to Trump and (more likely) abstentions. The corruption and depth of tribalism knows no bounds, again underlying my point that a Trump win would force both sides to do what's desperately needed in sharpening the f**k up.

 

[Sooky]

Whilst I still think Clinton will win, I wouldn't be at all shocked if Trump won. It's probably more likely to happen than Brexit was, and look how that ended.

There's people I know who genuinely think this is going to be a landslide for Clinton. Have they been asleep the past couple years or so?

And also, I wonder when people will realise that calling an entire voting group idiots will only make them more determined to vote as they feel they aren't being listened to.

It's all so fucked up that Gary Johnson and the Libertarians look fairly appealing...

[Monkey Tennis]

5 hours ago, banana said:

There's a long way to go yet until the debates, but I roughly agree with this assessment. His core messages will be simple, appealing, and largely unspun, he'll trip up due to his ad-libbing style a few times, but he'll come out ahead of a highly polished Clinton approach.

I think the effect of the latest Wikileaks will subside in terms of Trump's popularity in the polls, and Clinton's unpopularity. Having said that, according to Assange there are more leaks to come which will derail if not imprison Clinton. Must be monumental and unequivocal for her not to be able to slither out of.

Absolute scenes when Sanders addressed his supporters telling them to vote Clinton Will be fascinating now to see the resultant number of crossovers to Trump and (more likely) abstentions. The corruption and depth of tribalism knows no bounds, again underlying my point that a Trump win would force both sides to do what's desperately needed in sharpening the f**k up.

 

It's genuinely alarming if those sympathetic to Sanders can't bring themselves to vote for Clinton.

As he says himself, this is the real world and decent people shouldn't allow themselves the indulgence of a haughty abstention.

[AlbionMan]

6 minutes ago, Sooky said:

Whilst I still think Clinton will win, I wouldn't be at all shocked if Trump won. It's probably more likely to happen than Brexit was, and look how that ended.

There's people I know who genuinely think this is going to be a landslide for Clinton. Have they been asleep the past couple years or so?

And also, I wonder when people will realise that calling an entire voting group idiots will only make them more determined to vote as they feel they aren't being listened to.

It's all so fucked up that Gary Johnson and the Libertarians look fairly appealing...

The USA electorate are probably coming to the conclusion that getting rid of the monarchy was a serious mistake all those years ago.

[banana]

1 hour ago, Monkey Tennis said:

It's genuinely alarming if those sympathetic to Sanders can't bring themselves to vote for Clinton.

It's alarming but unsurprising that you won't see beyond black and white, and cannot stomach that others have perspectives, motivations and priorities that are different from yours. You are once again showing that you and your like are part of the rise of the Trump phenomenon.

That Sanders video cuts out too early, here's the full speech (16:47). The crowd dismay continues, and at the very end his wife whispers to him, "They don't know your name is being put in nomination, that's the concern."

 

[Adamski]

This site gives a summary of some of the statistical models being used to predict this.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/upshot/presidential-polls-forecast.html?_r=0#likely-scenarios

Nate Silver's Fivethirtyeight has it as much more of a tossup overall than most of the others, and they got every state correct last time around. Also I think they're being quite generous about classifying states as competitive: from their list I'd say that probably only the 13 states from Colorado to North Carolina fall into that category.

[pandarilla]

It's alarming but unsurprising that you see beyond black and white, and cannot stomach that others have perspectives, motivations and priorities that are different from yours. You are once again showing that you and your like are part of the rise of the Trump phenomenon.

That Sanders video cuts out too early, here's the full speech (16:47). The crowd dismay continues, and at the very end his wife whispers to him, "They don't know your name is being put in nomination, that's the concern."

 

What's your point about his wife's words? I don't really get it.

[banana]

Just now, pandarilla said:

What's your point about his wife's words? I don't really get it.

It's all speculation right now. It may mean he's going to run anyway, seeing an opportunity now that Clinton is bombing in popularity and possibly going to bomb further with later Wikileaks...?

[mrcat1990]

It's all so fucked up that Gary Johnson and the Libertarians look fairly appealing...

In the grand scheme of things Johnson comes across fairly well if a bit lacking in conviction. The base of avid supporters of the Libertarian party come however come across like fucking lunatics.

[Monkey Tennis]

1 hour ago, banana said:

It's alarming but unsurprising that you won't see beyond black and white, and cannot stomach that others have perspectives, motivations and priorities that are different from yours. You are once again showing that you and your like are part of the rise of the Trump phenomenon.

 

Fascinating that my preference for Clinton over Trump has contributed to the rise of the latter.

If I preferred Trump, would that contribute to his demise?

[Sooky]

In the grand scheme of things Johnson comes across fairly well if a bit lacking in conviction. The base of avid supporters of the Libertarian party come however come across like fucking lunatics.

Exactly this. At their convention, Johnson got booed for saying he would have voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and that needing a driving license is a perfectly reasonable requirement to be able to drive. Apparently both of these cause too much government interference!

On the other hand, they have backed same-sex marriage since 1972 (a massive 40 years before the Democrats got around to it) and are totally opposed to capital punishment. They'd also leave the issue of abortion to be decided by the individual.

Another positive is that they are generally anti-intervention and wouldn't send troops to war every other day, but a negative is that they are probably more pro-guns than the GOP!