Election 16: Donald Trumps wins Presidency. God Help us all!

[@DCGoldPants]

In the last week, state polls have come out in FL, VA, NC, OH and GA.

 

All of them have Trump beating Clinton head to head.

 

What's it going to take for Bloomberg to join the ****show?

 

I just don't see it.

 

I liked this site the last general.

 

http://www.270towin.com/maps/bMcf

[Kilmer17]

I just don't see it.

 

I liked this site the last general.

 

http://www.270towin.com/maps/bMcf

So if you take the latest polls and apply to that map, Trump wins. 

[@DCGoldPants]

So if you take the latest polls and apply to that map, Trump wins. 

 

the average of the latest polls? That's why I like this one. Because they generally apply the polls you're talking about. I just don't see them.

 

You should email them with the updated links. 

My bad. VA has Clinton beating Trump. http://www.13newsnow.com/news/poll-clinton-sanders-would-beat-trump-in-virginia/57455392

[Kilmer17]

the average of the latest polls? That's why I like this one. Because they generally apply the polls you're talking about. I just don't see them.

 

You should email them with the updated links. 

The problem with average sites like that at this stage is that polls from 6 months ago aren't really relevant.  Just like polls from today wont be relevant 6 months from now.

 

We cant tell if todays polls are outliers, because there isn't much to compare them to.

[Going Commando]

I feel like you're demanding that I never challenge anybody's arguments, instead passively submitting to every challenge my propositions meet, which seems awfully unfair.

I feel like the same thing is going on too.

I'm open to Sanders and his message. I actually prefer his positions and background on many issues, particularly on Healthcare and his "just war" doctrine that you mentioned, and I respect his record on the issue, particularly his no vote on AUMF. And I appreciate your sincerity, intellectual honesty, and energy in advocating for him.

BTW when you went back and forth with Predicto about what Senators had to work with when they made yes votes for AUMF, I believe there was an argument to be had that favored you in that there was consensus among scholars on the ME that the invasion and destabilization of Iraq would lead to sectarian chaos that would be worse. Meaning the executive branch wasn't the only place for information that Democrat Senators could have gone to inform their vote. It argues for Bernie's judgement that he didn't get caught up in the echo chamber that his Democrat colleagues did.

I disagree with some of your attitudes about and characterizations of Hillary Clinton. I don't feel the antipathy for her that you do and will absolutely vote for her if she wins the nomination. I feel like a lot of the negativity about her is based on irrelevant character attacks, rather than being grounded in differences on the issues. I do feel like Hillary receives different treatment from the other candidates, that her conservative opponents have been spamming the discourse surrounding her with mud for so long (case in point, chipwich in this thread) that it is just utterly polluted with nonsense now. And I do feel like Bernie supporters have been opportunistically joining in and using conservative mudslinging and witch hunting on Hillary to help him. Not you, but I drown in it when I pop on over to reddit. The virulently anti-Hillary crowd has had a way the hell disproportionately loud voice thus far, and Predicto is right that it is shaping the course of public sentiment against her.

I'm also going to say that a united party was the single biggest thing that separated the Democrats from Republicans for the past 8 years. I hope the party unites behind Hillary if she wins the nomination. Die hard Bernie supporters will be pissed, justifiably so since this has never been a fair fight between him and Clinton. But they've got to realize that being a part of a strong, big tent party means you've got to swallow some **** sometimes. That you can't take your ball and go home if Bernie loses, because someone is going to be president, and liberals who refuse to participate are really only helping the guy from the other party that you really don't want to win. And despite the mountain of false equivalencies chipwich has made in this thread, Hillary is not Trump. Nor Cruz nor Rubio.

I'm saying this because I don't want you to feel like you're being ganged up on by the other liberals in this thread--I'm agreeing with almost all of your posts.

[@DCGoldPants]

The problem with average sites like that at this stage is that polls from 6 months ago aren't really relevant.  Just like polls from today wont be relevant 6 months from now.

 

We cant tell if todays polls are outliers, because there isn't much to compare them to.

 

There you go then. I did a search for Clinton/Trump Head to Head Polling Florida or Ohio and can't find anything recent. I'll try again later.

[RedskinsFan44]

In the last week, state polls have come out in FL, VA, NC, OH and GA.

 

All of them have Trump beating Clinton head to head.

 

What's it going to take for Bloomberg to join the ****show?

NC

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/nc/north_carolina_trump_vs_clinton-5538.html

VA

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/va/virginia_trump_vs_clinton-5542.html

FL

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/fl/florida_trump_vs_clinton-5635.html

OH

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/oh/ohio_trump_vs_clinton-5634.html

GA

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ga/georgia_trump_vs_clinton-5741.html

 

 

RCP doesn't have OH data and I did not bother with GA, if Trump loses there its a landslide.  RCP has standards for what polls they carry, no internet, etc.  Looks close, but as others have said it is early and the real muck raking has yet to begin.

 

Add: I would also note that the only candidate who has gotten above 50 is Clinton in VA, and losing VA again is bad for Republicans.  And NC is a hell of a lot closer than it should be.

 

Added OH and GA

[grhqofb5]

VP Play.

 

Gotta admit - this locks up the in your face raging asshole vote for Trump.  

 

Assuming he's VP (and Trump wins), at least there's going to be someone with him who has experience governing. Although I imagine within about 6 weeks Trump would have Christie walking around the White House wearing a g-string and serving tapas to his various cronies, with the threat of "do as I say or I'll ruin any chance you have of running for president in 2024."  And Christie would do it, too.

[Larry]

Seems that Rubio's main superpac is planning to put out some anti Christie ads.

That seems like a childish waste of money. Dude's not running.

[Kilmer17]

I got all of the polls from RCP.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/latest_polls/

[Going Commando]

I'm not ashamed to say it, I enjoy Lindsey Graham. Sometimes his politics drive me nuts, but if I lived in South Carolina, he might steal my vote.

[PeterMP]

In the last week, state polls have come out in FL, VA, NC, OH and GA.

 

All of them have Trump beating Clinton head to head.

 

What's it going to take for Bloomberg to join the ****show?

 

Where do you see VA?

 

Even their VA page doesn't have a newer poll.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/va/virginia_trump_vs_clinton-5542.html

 

And Clinton's VA large lead against Sanders seems to be holding in most recent polls (generally indicating no down turn in her support in VA).

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/va/virginia_democratic_presidential_primary-3922.html

 

Losing both FL and OH would be very problematic for Hillary.

 

The GOP has to win NC and GA.  If not, they're going to get killed.  If polls show Hillary close in those states, that's a good thing for Hillary.

[JMS]

Are they fake though? When you have foreign Presidents calling his comments bigoted and racist that carries some weight. When you have nation's removing his name from their buildings... that's not trivial.

Yeah give me a break.. Mexican Presidents telling Trump he's racist for sending illegals home.. You ever reviewed Mexico's immigration laws?

Also they're upset about having to pay for the wall. Trumps telling them he's going to play hardball and they aren't happy about it.. I have no problem with any of that. Like Mexico is going to risk what is probable a 50 billion a year surplus relationship with the US over having to finance 6 billion wall. I'm with Trump, I hope they say no.

Likewise I don't find it compelling when China "warns" us that we shouldn't get tough with them over currency manipulation. BRING IT. I say. Another country which is running 600 billion dollar trad surpluses with us threatening us. I don't think it's racist at all to call for a new relationship with these "trade" partners. Again Trumps position isn't all that far from Bernie's only trumps a might less cordial.

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

I don't think any of the polls matter yet, because what's going on with Trump is largely unprecedented. He has gotten billions of dollars in free advertising from the media, and his opponents have barely touched him at all with their own ads.

 

The fact that his negatives are as bad as they are is rather shocking. If Obama in 2008 had been able to call any show on CNN or FOX at any time to talk uninterrupted for an hour AND had not received one direct attack from Hillary AND was able to get everyone of his rallies covered on cable in their entirety, he could have been appointed King for Life.

 

Once the general election starts, he might find those invites to CNN and MSNBC are going to try up while the Clinton Machine just starts savaging him. That's where things will get interesting.

[Going Commando]

like all of us, politicians need to decide when and where they are going to make a stand. In retrospect, this obviously would've been a decent place to do make stands.  and although they would've been voted out office three weeks later --- 6 years AFTER they were voted out of office they would've been able to say "i told you so".    (again, this isn't a problem for representatives in safe districts... but for 9 out of 10 senators up for re-election it was a huge problem)

This was a good post. I think you explain the pressures that Democrat Senators were under well. But it also argues for the value of good principles to guide judgement/policy/voting no? Something like belief in just war doctrine that s0crat3s mentioned. Sometimes (especially in times of duress) public sentiment is terribly wrong and going against it will always be politically difficult. This kind of pressure is as old as politics itself. I think that s0crat3s is right that it helps Bernie and makes him look like a stronger leader to me that he is demonstrably less susceptible to abandoning his principles for political expediency than Hillary is.

This is not to say that absolutism is preferable to pragmatism either. The movie Lincoln has one of my favorite quotes about the benefits of pragmatism in an exchange between Lincoln and Thaddeus Stevens:

"A compass, I learned when I was surveying, it'll... it'll point you True North from where you're standing, but it's got no advice about the swamps and deserts and chasms that you'll encounter along the way. If in pursuit of your destination, you plunge ahead, heedless of obstacles, and achieve nothing more than to sink in a swamp... What's the use of knowing True North?"

So the ideal is to find the best balance between pragmatism and making the principled stand. As you said, it's just that in this instance of the AUMF vote, making the principled stand was probably the right move.

[JMS]

Trump would have Christie walking around the White House wearing a g-string and serving tapas to his various cronies, with the threat of "do as I say or I'll ruin any chance you have of running for president in 2024."  And Christie would do it, too.

I think that's probable more politically correct than what Trump would actually do.. I figure he would have the Sports Illustrated bikini models hosting Gloria Steinem and Feminists leaders at a white house showing of some R rated Movie screening.

I don't think Christy has anything to worry about.

[s0crates]

It had nothing to do with it being a diversion. . .

Should I just quote each one of your posts and say Good Job?

I shouldn't have gone in on your debate tactics. I'm sorry about that.

I'm letting my frustration at being misunderstood get the better of me, but it's on me to make myself understood. I'll try to be more clear.

Maybe I should have used the word wrong or mistake. But there are HUGE differences between Medicare for all, which would be universal, but not truly single payer, single pay which doesn't have to mean no co-pays and deductibles, and what Sanders is proposing.

And I've made that essential point several times in this thread.

. . .

"Bernie’s plan means no more copays, no more deductibles and no more fighting with insurance companies when they fail to pay for charges."

People with Medicare deal with all of those things.

I still feel like you're splitting hairs here, but I'll concede your distinction if you will allow me redirect your attention to what I believe.

Here's my view: Healthcare is a right not a privilege. Nobody in America should have to go without healthcare or face financial hardship due to healthcare costs. Bernie believes the same thing.

I doubt we'll see eye to eye on that, but that's my view.

In other words, Bernie Sanders supports bombing ISIS even though he doesn't believe there is a plan in place to actually defeat it.

Not exactly. He says:

1. We have no choice but to keep up the fight with ISIS.

2a. We need a plan with an exit strategy . . .

2b. . . . which we currently lack.

3. This plan should include international cooperation with our European and Middle Eastern allies.

You seem to think he says 1 and 2b, but not 2a and 3.

I will also add that I think the situation in the Middle East is a terrible mess, and I don't know if there are any good solutions. I'd be interested to hear what you think we should do.

Anyway I do think Bernie will need to be more specific about ISIS eventually, but my original point was that his basic foreign policy philosophy is in keeping with just war theory, and it is that philosophy I agree with. You can read more about it here:

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-foreign-poicy-213619#ixzz3zuY8CbeK

https://berniesanders.com/issues/war-and-peace/

[JMS]

Here's my view: Healthcare is a right not a privilege. Nobody in America should have to go without healthcare or face financial hardship due to healthcare costs. Bernie believes the same thing.

Yes and while that's logical and persuasive to liberals, Really what makes a universal single payer solution sing is that we are going to save about 1.5 Trillion a year potentially while extending benefits to everybody....

France pays about half what we pay per capita and since they have the most expensive single payer universal system, as well as the best performing healthcare system in the world, let's use them as a model.. ( we're like #34 according to the WHO ).

We currently pay about 20% of our GDP for healthcare...

17 Trillion GDP x .2 x .5 = 1.7 trillion savings.. That's an anvil lifted off the chest of our economy.. both public and private, both individuals and corporations. I find those savings associated at least as persuasive as your original point that it's simple the right thing to do.

That is why Hillary get's 450,000 a speech right there.. That's what healthcare companies want to protect.

[s0crates]

I feel like the same thing is going on too.

. . .

I'm saying this because I don't want you to feel like you're being ganged up on by the other liberals in this thread--I'm agreeing with almost all of your posts.

1. I really appreciate your last couple posts a lot. I am feeling a bit ganged up on and misunderstood, and it eases my mind to know somebody is understanding me.

2. I know you're right that we'll be better off with Hillary than anybody in the GOP field, and I probably should choose the lesser evil if she gets the nomination, but I really don't feel good about her at all.

3. It's "s0crates" not "s0crat3s."

[visionary]

Interesting.  Did Christie go after Rubio and lay off Trump to help Trump rather than to help himself? (knowing that he had no chance at that point)

 

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2016/02/union-leader-joe-mcquaid-christie-trump-endorsement-219874

Union Leader publisher: Christie told me he would not endorse Trump

 

The day after the New Hampshire primary, the publisher of the New Hampshire Union Leader, Joe McQuaid, received an unusual phone call.

 

It was a mutual acquaintance of his and Chris Christie's, saying the New Jersey governor was going to endorse Trump. Christie had dropped out of the race that day, and the Union Leader, which had endorsed him, had gone after Trump with both barrels during the primary, memorably comparing him to Biff from "Back to the Future."

 

McQuaid was puzzled, he told POLITICO in an interview on Friday. Would Christie really endorse somebody like Trump?

 

"So I sent a message off to Gov. Christie and he called me right back and I told him what I'd heard, and he said 'No, no, I would never do that,'" McQuaid recalled. "[Christie] told me to tell the other guy to 'take his head out of his ass' for saying he would support Trump."

 

Christie endorsed Trump on Friday, hailing him for "rewriting the playbook” for how to run a presidential campaign.
McQuaid said he's "disappointed" in Christie, and said his endorsement is not transferable.

[@DCGoldPants]

Just saw my first Pro-Rubio ad in Maryland. Some PAC. Rips Trump, Cruz..... Compares Rubio to Reagan then says for a New Generation.

[Predicto]

Just understand that

 

1. I really appreciate your last couple posts a lot. I am feeling ganged up on and misunderstood, and it eases my mind a bit to know somebody is understanding me.

 

 

1) You aren't really ganged up on.   You just post a lot of opinion pieces and blogposts from other sources (some of them Bernie wish-fulfillment and some not).  The rest of us naturally are going to comment on what you post.  If we had a poster who posted a ton of pro-Hillary editorials and blogposts, people would poke at them to look for holes in the same way.   But we don't have that person.  Most people post breaking news, not "why my candidate should win" stories.  

 

there's nothing wrong with doing that.  We like you and we like Bernie too  

 

2)  You edited the second half of your post, so nevermind.   

Just saw my first Pro-Rubio ad in Maryland. Some PAC. Rips Trump, Cruz..... Compares Rubio to Reagan then says for a New Generation.

 

 

No longer using "For a New American Century" as his slogan?  

 

Maybe someone pointed out to Rubio that the New American Century language makes it too obvious how much of a PNAC neocon he is?  

[Destino]

I don't think any of the polls matter yet, because what's going on with Trump is largely unprecedented. He has gotten billions of dollars in free advertising from the media, and his opponents have barely touched him at all with their own ads.

 

The fact that his negatives are as bad as they are is rather shocking. If Obama in 2008 had been able to call any show on CNN or FOX at any time to talk uninterrupted for an hour AND had not received one direct attack from Hillary AND was able to get everyone of his rallies covered on cable in their entirety, he could have been appointed King for Life.

 

Once the general election starts, he might find those invites to CNN and MSNBC are going to try up while the Clinton Machine just starts savaging him. That's where things will get interesting.

 

I mentioned this earlier, Anderson Cooper responded to someone saying Trump getting to much air time by saying that they are constantly asking the candidates to come on but Trump is the one that most often agrees.  That makes sense to me.  I can't imagine the media refusing Presidential candidates during an election year.  They talk about elections all day long and having candidates on makes that easier to do and increases the risk that they'll say something inflammatory and boost the ratings. 

 

Trump is walking talking ratings boost.  GOP debates on cable news are getting higher ratings than network shows.  He's made the GOP debates an absolute must watch for me.  I've never seen anything like this but watching him force career politicians into a insulting shouting match is amazing.  Trump is awful but he is unquestionably entertaining.  The networks, unless republicans are right and there is a media conspiracy, aren't going to turn him away. 

[Burgold]

I mentioned this earlier, Anderson Cooper responded to someone saying Trump getting to much air time by saying that they are constantly asking the candidates to come on but Trump is the one that most often agrees. 

That could be something good that comes out of this election. There has been an antagonism towards the media by politicians for a while now. It's most severe on the Republican side, but Dems avoid 'em too. Obama is actually very rarely interviewed and has allowed a pretty small number of press conferences. 

 

If Trump's availability is latched onto it may allow for to get a fuller view of the candidates for better of for worse. Mind you, for as much as Trump gets airtime, I still think he has done a masterful job at not showing his hand in terms of plans or agenda. I think that points to a failing in his interviewers as much as great political sleight of hand by Trump.

[Springfield]

Re: Donald Trump

I can't stop thinking about this.