Trump is going to win the election. Current events fit exactly within his themes, he's a moderate who can appeal to non-leftist democrats and independents, Republicans will unite in hatred of the ice queen, his VP pick adds credibility and helps bring in the religious nuts, his daughter is amazingly fuckable as well as articulate and gorgeous, his attacks on the Clintons are hitting the mark, anti-gun control is the side to be on in the current social environment, Bill Clinton looks like a dirty old man, Trump has the momentum, and HIllary makes men lose their erections. I also think Trump will crush her in a debate.
Obviously there will be lots of disagreement. But just remember this. Here on tuscl I called the Cavs victory over Golden State when Cleveland was down 3-1. So I'm on a roll.
But let's not get all pissed off and ugly about this. If you're inclined to get all pissed off, get a blow job from your favorite stripper before you post a response. Or smoking a blunt would work too.
I apologize in advance for posting a political thread. Weed made me do it.
This can be debated endlessly. Sure minorities especially are a serious problem for Trump. But I think he's improving with women, and young adults might stay home without the old socialist.
On balance, I think my having called the Cavs victory tips the scales in my favor.
JS: I have the exact opposite prediction (and keep in mind, I hate Clinton and have not voted for a democrat in any election in over 20 years, though I do often vote libertarian when I hate candidates from both parties):
Trump is both dangerous and a joke. He wins the Republican faithful and nothing else
Hillary, as repulsive as she is, wins the Democratic faithful. Independents hold their noses and vote for her also, as do a good percentage of moderate republicans
Hillary in a landslide in 2016. Democrats also make gains in Congress initially, riding on the wave of revulsion
She goes on to be well hated, and whoever Republicans put up in 2020 -- assuming they don't put up someone like Trump again -- wins handily. Here's hoping it's Kasich ... Cruz is also enough of a stinker that Hillary could at least put up a fight. Kasich would crush.
Disagree about Kasich. He's proposed turning Medicare into a voucher system and privatizing social security. Old farts (like most on TUSCL) make up a huge voting block, and would hardly go for that.
Trump def has momentum and polls, for w/e they're worth, show him neck to neck w/ Hiallary - Hillary doesn't seem to inspire passion, she's as sexy a candidate as a Toyota Camry is a "sexy car"- Trump is a disrupter & may have a higher ceiling in terms of moving the voters but also a lower floor in terms of turning them off - Hillary barely beat a virtually nationally unknown socialist if it wasn't for the rigged super delegates Democratic party nomination system - Trump, will all his naysayers & haters came out of nowhere & got more votes than any Republican candidate in history - it's a different kind of election & hard to predict how it will shake out - Trump was counted out countless times & pretty-much had the entire establishment against him and he basically kicked everybody's ass w/ almost no help and most people against him including almost all fhe media.
Texas billionaire Mark Cuban tweeted this
"I'm convinced the @realDonaldTrump dream scenario is to win the popular vote but lose the election. All the glory. None of the work".
Tough to say. Democrats traditionally have trouble getting their people out, and having Hilary as the candidate won't help that.
Trump's followers on the other are likely to come out in bigger numbers.
That said, Clinton, contrary to her usual dipshit self actually seems to be playing it pretty well against Trump.
It'll come down to which of the two wants it more in my opinion. Based on history Clinton seems to be okay with screwing up and losing. Trump not so much.
Ladbrokes has Hilary at 4 to 9 and Trump at 7 to 4. I think Trump is much more likely than that. Would put it at 50/50 as of now, but the debates will really be what decides it.
Although I haven't voted for a Republican since George H. W. Bush (the old one) I consider myself a conservative Republican and even I won't vote from Trump.
But there's been 3 terrorist attacks in Europe in less than 10 days. Trump may have convinced enough voters that unless something is done fsst, it's going to happen in America too.
A few months ago I never thought Trump could win. Now, I think there's a chance
I don't think this one can be "called." Trump may get the majority of votes, simply because his one liners about terror and illegals do resonate with a majority of voters and the distrust of Hillary seems to be growing every press cycle. But - and it IS a big butt - the demographics of the Electoral College are extreme.
The Democrat machine in most large cities is very effective and delivers majority votes in urban precincts, whether the voters show up or not, and those cities are often enough to carry entire states. Then you have to add in the powerful attacks that will be delivered over the next 3 months by both the liberal press and the the Soros and friends funded Political Action Committees. It will be difficult for the RNC or Trump to counter the coming flood of negative "news." This will be compounded because the Kochs and several other major Republican backers appear to be "sitting this one out."
Trump has succeeded to date against "only" the press attacks and primary candidates, but against the combined: press, "opinion media," DNC attack ads, Democrat PACs and the Hillary campaign, I don't know if The Donald can keep his kool.
I think the only path to the White House for Trump will have to include a new, and really big, "Hillary scandal" And I am not even sure that will be enough. The Clintons seem to have a special Teflon coating that prevents any kind of indictment or scandal from sticking.
motorhead: "But there's been 3 terrorist attacks in Europe in less than 10 days. "
I don't think it's coincidence either. ISIS wants Trump as president. They are starting to get clobbered on the battlefield, but if they can hang in to November I expect them to keep up the pressure and help get the Trump voters out.
Police shootings have got to play into Trump's hands more than Clinton's as well.
I think it's too close to call right now -- and I was smart enough to predict @Smith's midlife crisis.
Thing is, Trump sounds like an incoherent, rambling, bullshitting, kid when he's talking off script and he has no curiosity about actually studying the issues. We'll see if he can get though the debates in late Sept.
It turned out there were more gullible angry old white men in the Republican Party than anyone realized. There simply aren't enough of them in the country to put Cheeto Jesus and his retarded sidekick in the White House.
I think whoever wins might become a hated president if things go downhill and I think that could happen with either choice. If Trump does win and he causes the deficit to explode before growth kicks up, hopefully growth picks up enough to offset all the tax cuts. I thought we tried all that during the Reagen years and I thought it caused the national debt to go up a lot. Growth did ramp up though and continued afterwards. Unnecessary government spending needs to be cut. Hillary probably won't do it. She'll be happy to let us all get screwed 20 years from now when the government says they have no money to pay social security, Medicare etc. or they pay with near worthless currency compared to today.
I think Trump helped to alienate some of his "faithful" by picking a veep who isn't like minded (the Indiana Governor was probably to appease the religious nuts -- a bad calculation, IMO). It wil be interesting to see how this plays out.
It's unlikely Trump will unless Hillary really fucks up or something happens that really shocks the system. A black swan event.
You just think he'll win because you're hearing from a lot of cranky old white guys. I'm more worried than some of my friends because I think the number of potential Trump voters is higher than they think.
Trump's constituency is basically poorly-educated white men. The evangelicals are a wild card because they *shouldn't* support Trump if they were internally consistent. But his choice of Pence could galvanize some support. Add to the fact that a lot of "evangelicals" are actually not very religious (i.e., they are actually poorly-educated whites that "cling to God and guns" and don't actually understand Christian theology).
So Trump will dominate among poorly-educated white males and pick up some older white female "evangelicals". Unfortunately, there are a lot of those people. But Hillary will win with a coalition of people of color, younger women, older but well-educated secular women, and well-educated white males.
It'll be closer than it should be for a competent and intelligent (if somewhat flawed) policy wonk (Hillary for those unable to infer from context) vs a con-man entertainer (Trump).
Remember, Trump got more primary votes than any other Republican candidate largely because the primaries lasted so damn long. He didn't even win a majority of Republican primary voters. His campaign is being run incompetently. I think he's maxed out his popularity unless a black swan event happens and low-information voters in the middle switch.
This election should be a no-brainer. The fact that it isn't says something really sad.
Hey now, I have a Jewish grandpa who is a wealthy pediatrician and still drives a Camry. (I think it's a Camry. Might be a Corolla. Either way it's a little Toyota way over 10 yrs old). Did I mention he is a Jew?
What Nina said (initially, about the Electoral College). National polls are irrelevant other than for the broadest trends. If HRC wins FL or PA, the game is over. Even if she doesn't, she probably already has VA locked up, and NC is going her way. DJT is going to need to defend AZ and GA and possibly UT, of all places. Like Nina said, it won't be close.
To flagooner I missed something what was the point about the Camry
To Nina and the point about your grandfather being Jewish
I reread this entire thread please explain what I missed.
I drive an even older Toyota. It has been very reliable.
My previous car was a Transam. It looked great and was fun to drive. It cost a fortune in maintenance. I had it in the car repair shop every month after only 6 or 7 years. The Transam was assembled in Canada. The Toyota in Georgia.
My 15 year old Toyota is still the most reliable car I ever owned.
The Transam had smoke under the car seat before I even drove it off the dealer lot. Then I drove through hail going home. It was two bad omens in my opinion. However I did have a stripper shake her butt against the front if the car. Her approval. I also let at least 2 or 3 strippers drive the car. Everyone wanted to drive it. Some wanted to race. I wasn't trying to buy the NASCAR pace car but it was the same type for a few years.
People get wealthy by limiting expenses. I see nothing wrong with driving around in an old car if it's reliable.
As far as the democrat voters. Most are poor in my opinion or on some type of government assistance. That's why Romney was flabbergasted when he figured out half the population wasn't working and collecting unemployment, Medicare, welfare, or social security, or some type of assistance. That's why the democrats are so eager to raise taxes on the rich republicans and allow all the illegal immigrants to become legal. That could be 11 million more poor people all voting for democrats because they see the democrats as the party that gives lots of freebies at the expense of everyone else.
The financially insecure , hint poorer people, are more likely to vote democrat when they do vote. The financially insecure tend to have less education. I'm taking these facts straight from this article.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/01/08/t…
The Democrats are very good at getting out the votes on Presidential Election Years. Even better than Republicans are. Their problem is off election years. This election year, is one year where that advantage may not be as big. Both parties are going to be working extremely hard this election for many reasons.
The major one currently looks to be for control of the Supreme Court. Scalia's seat is out for grabs, and Ginsberg, Kennedy and Breyer can all potentially retire within the next 4 years. So there is a potential of the court going 6-3 liberal or conservative leaning depending on who wins the presidency. Both parties are already using this to scare their base into voting. My household is fairly evenly split Democrat and Republican so I see the propaganda on both sides.
Second looks to be control of the Senate. The Democrats see Donald Trump as being a weakness they can exploit to further drive their base to the polls. So I expect both parties to have a high turnout to the polls. What remains to be seen is how the rest of the non-partisan electorate vote.
I believe one advantage is that many moderate Republicans may actually hold their nose and vote for Hillary over Trump. As a moderate Republican I know I am considering voting on her. In most years if I see a bad candidate I would vote for a third party candidate instead. If Kasich would have been the candidate, that would be a no-brainer.
However right Trump and the extreme fringe of the Republican party scares me. Electing Trump puts Pence one step away from the Presidency. Considering how volatile Trump is, there is a very high chance he will do something very early in his term that gets him impeached and places Pence as President.
I agree about being worried that Pence is second in line for the presidency of the US if Trump gets elected. I'd like a veep do-over. Can Trump or could Trump have picked someone like-minded like Newt Gingrich? I think Gingrich hates immigrants even more than Trump. To me that's a logical choice not Pence. I know it's water under the bridge, but couldn't he have chosen Newt Gingrich? :(
Hillary has her weaknesses, but Trump has shown time and time again he is clueless on foreign policy and fighting terrorism. He won the nomination on populist isolationist rhetoric. If terrorism becomes the issue, he can't make hay on it like "average Republican" could.
The electoral college is ugly for Republicans, and the Donald had trouble in Wisconsin and Ohio in the primaries. Florida is looking to go Hillary. When the Democrats start strategically attacking Trump, it could get ugly.
I almost think he's a Hillary operative. She couldn't beat anyone else. But he's awful.
Nate Silver at 538 (probably the smartest guy at using Big Data to call elections) has Trump winning Florida, Ohio, Penn and winning the election. It's a snapshot, but utterly frightening.
Unfortunately randomdude, you're right 'bout Silver. I'm still hopeful things will shift back, but Trump could win.
And, frankly, that's bone chilling. Trump is the first President in a long time that could seriously damage the US. I know the conservadudes on her have their stupid "Hillary is a bit rationale" and some even believe crap like she's a murderer (who somehow only kills he former business partner's dog walker -- wtf?) but she is a NORMAL politician. Like Obama or Bush or Bill C. the republic will march on with Hillary. Trump is the black swan - he could fuck us up seriously. Hillary will just do the occasional thing that makes you old white conservadudes grumpy.
Trump WILL fuck us up. And if you're a cranky conservadude remember that TRUMP AIN'T A CONSERVATIVE!!! You have NO conservative option that can win. So just don't vote moron!
All the democrats inciting a freakout over a probable Trump victory are just trying to rally voters to the polls. They know that this is likely to be the election that sets the lowest voter turnout in history. Most rational republicans and conservatives are too turned off by Trump, ditto for the lefties and libs. The biggest danger for the republican party, and the country, is that so many of the republican base will stay home and not vote at all, that Dems sweep all three houses.
Conservatives are much more likely to be patriotic and view voting as a civic duty. So at the end of the day, conservatives are more likely to show up and hold their nose while voting for Trump whereas the liberal Bernie supporters are more likely to stay home. This is especially true now that Trump has been proven right that the system was rigged to guarantee the ice queen the nomination and a get out of jail card.
^Yes. (response to John) liberals and moderates are far more likely to feel their individual vote doesn't matter (or whatever rationale they feel to use) in order to justify staying home and not voting.
For example, I have always voted in all but 2 elections (both were spring time) and ditto for giving blood, whereas my SO and her like minded friends are fair likely to skip both. I've also voted in every presidential primary. This was the first primary my liberal friends voted in. So I see where John is coming from.
I'm feeling better about Trump everyday. So now, as long as Trump doesn't arm every rogue state with nuclear weapons and cause WWIII, I feel better and better about him each passing week.
The prospect of Clinton picking supreme court justices may be the only thing that makes me hesitate. Otherwise, I would never consider the clown prince
It's a fact that a higher percentage of conservatives vote. Hell, if the slightest inconvenience occurs, like rain, the percentage of left-leaning voters goes down. Conservatives vote no matter what, and get absentee ballots when they can't, or are just too lazy to go in (I'm in the latter category -- I have never voted at a polling station, I'm a permanent absentee voter)
Yes there are also other factors but the court appointments are crucially important! Supreme Court justices are not subject to re election or term limits. When they get in it's usually till death, 20, 30, or more years. Trump has said he'll appoint constitutional following judges which is how it should be. Clinton? No matter what she says, would you really believe her? The Clinton's history and background say they thumb their noses at laws and the constitution. They both have a history of attacking the 1st 2nd 4th and 5th amendments among others. The Supreme Court is due for one and possibly three appointments over the next few years. I don't want the Clintons with that power! The United States would never recover from that!
That's why I support Juice for president. We know he isn't likely to damage the country too much. Heck with a stripper pole in the front office, think of how he can entertain foreign heads of state. :)
TheeOSU, why are you trying to turn over our country to Vladimir Putin for SCOTUS appointments?
I bet you can't even name three cases where you: A) actually disagree with the Notorious RBG and B) understand the constitutional basis for the arguments for and against her position.
But noooo... you're so scared about SCOTUS appointments that you are going to vote to turn over our country to Vladimir Putin!
I am actually a loyal American. I don't want our great country to become another province of Russia.
I guess I should just say do svidaniya to America because of people like you. I'm going to start brushing up on my Cyrillic script now...
Zipman, I never brought Ginsburg up and my previous comment isn't about Ginsburg or any other single justice, but the total make up of the court. I never questioned your loyalty. I stated my view and you stated your view, but there's no way I'm going to get into a drag out discussion with anyone that thinks that Putin is going to run the country. I believe I may have seen you mock someone regarding tin foil hat comments, my recollection may be wrong on that, but it doesn't matter as I see your Putin comment as the epitome of tin foil hat pandemonium. You choose to believe what you believe as I choose what I believe. I will respectfully leave it at that.
I take exception to the statement "Conservatives are much more likely to be patriotic and view voting as a civic duty." I don't think conservatives or liberals or progressives or any one has a lock on who's more patriotic. I am old enough to remember when Joe McCarthy went around getting people blacklisted for their ideology or even daring to listen to a speech that he didn't approve of. I think that impugning someone's patriotism is about the most Un-American thing going these days. Every one is entitled to their view and to disagree with another view, but the election will be held in November and regardless of who wins life will go on about the same. I'm sure some idiot will start calling me names but who really gives a fuck.
"regardless of who wins life will go on about the same. "
------------------------------------------
I might have the same opinion if the nominee were Jeb or Rubio or Romney or Kasich. There are just no more words left to describe how unqualified Trump is for office and how utterly unfit he is as a world leader. This is the most surreal and scary election of my lifetime.
The election is over. HRC has the electoral college votes to win the election. It doesn't matter how you feel about the candidates anymore. It's winner take all in each state. Does everyone remember Bush stealing the election from Gore? It was totally legal. But Gore had the popular vote and Bush needed one state to win. It was that close. This election won't be.
^ That settles it then, she won, hooray! Now all the dems can sit back and play x-box or watch their gubmint provided cable tv on election day. No need to vote!
And typical kool aid mantra trying to re-write history re Bush. Gore conceded the night of the election then changed his mind and challenged it. Except he didn't want a "full" recount, just a partial one which would benefit him including "not" counting votes from overseas military!
It's obvious Trump has been his own worst enemy - all throughout the primaries many said he was not really interested in being president but just wanted the publicity - I wonder if his doubling-down of self-inflicted wounds is his way of getting out of being president.
There is a series currently on PBS called "The Contenders" that profiles previous presidential candidates (it's pretty interesting) - they recently profiled Ross Perot's run in 1992 where some of his campaign people were interviewed in the present and they said Perot never wanted to become president but did want a platform to share his views and force attention to certain topics (budget; NAFTA; etc).
I wondered when somebody would pull up this old thread. Larry, thanks for the offer but I have to pass. It's not that I think that Trump won't win. To the contrary, Trump still has a path to victory. The best current path to victory seems to be the hope that Hillary will suffer some debilitating but not fatal disease before election day.
But if it turns out that I was rong in my prediction, Mary Jane is the one who made this post.
I stand by my initial impressions... the only thing I'd take back is, I'm not entirely certain Hillary will be as hated after she wins, as I'd initially theorized
-----------------------
JS: I have the exact opposite prediction (and keep in mind, I hate Clinton and have not voted for a democrat in any election in over 20 years, though I do often vote libertarian when I hate candidates from both parties):
Trump is both dangerous and a joke. He wins the Republican faithful and nothing else
Hillary, as repulsive as she is, wins the Democratic faithful. Independents hold their noses and vote for her also, as do a good percentage of moderate republicans
Hillary in a landslide in 2016. Democrats also make gains in Congress initially, riding on the wave of revulsion
She goes on to be well hated, and whoever Republicans put up in 2020 -- assuming they don't put up someone like Trump again -- wins handily. Here's hoping it's Kasich ... Cruz is also enough of a stinker that Hillary could at least put up a fight. Kasich would crush.
Fortunately this debacle of an election is almost over, all but the shouting that is sure to come from the traitor after the criminal wins in a landslide. I hope that the powers that be, both the Democrats and the Republicans (assuming there is still a Republican party) learn their lessons, and never repeat this sorry excuse for an election. This has been the worst excuse for an election i have ever seen in my 63 years on this earth, not only were the major candidates terrible, but the other two Johnson the Libertarian is dumber than a rock, and Stein from the Green Party is a total and complete airhead.
Just remember, one of the above will be our future president. We're all doomed.
If you think it's the end, you could be right. I just popped in to spread good cheer. Or give everyone a reason to visit a strip club and forget about it. :)
John, you're either crazy, in a drug induced state of dementia, or trolling. Trumps chances went from 1in 5 to 1 in 1000. You may be a great lawyer but you must have slept through Statistics 101.
The election is over. Ryan basically admitted it. It's a landslide in the electoral college. He's getting creamed. The GOP in damage control mode for after.
John was right when he wrote this post back in July. I don't think any of us would have imagined that Trump would fail to reorient and campaign like an electable candidate.
At least there's somebody left out there who still thinks that I'm right. And while I know that the odds are that we're both wrong, it's gonna be cool as fuck in the unlikely event that I can say I told you so.
Trump might win an election of some type sometime in his lifetime, but he's not winning anything in November 2016. He's his own worst enemy, and he has no one to blame but himself.
JohnSmith why are you supporting him? Twelve women recently said he sexually assaulted them. He said women will let you grab them by their pussy. He's pissed off Mexicans, women. Trump can be a lot of things, but there's no way in hell he's qualified to be president of the United States. Are you kidding me?
Hillary is not as bad as Trump, but she ain't qualified to be president either. I'll be voting for Gary Johnson.
^^^If you actually took the time to check Gary Johnson out you will find that he is dumber than a sack of rocks. Trump ain't gonna win shit he's toast.
The Fox News article is full of horseshit (what else can you expect from Fox) and the USC/LA-Times polling that is referenced is notorious for bad sampling techniques. Google Nate Silver at "538" for the best forecasting in the business. He has Clinton winning by something like 140 delegates as a write this.
Does anyone think Trump will do worse than Reagan vs. Mondale? That was the most lopsided in history at 525 to 13. Probably not, although I don't underestimate Trump's ability to alienate even his more ardent supporters. Clinton has a shot at 400 though.
The best thing that could happen to the Republican party, is Trump getting destroyed in the polls. The fact is, the Republican party primary voters handed the election to Hillary, which also means 15 years of the supreme court moving to the left (which, frankly, I think is far worse than Hillary in the white house), it means loads of other bad things.
If it's close, Republican primary voters learn nothing ... "oh, we voted for a lunatic and we missed the white house by THIS MUCH; we can vote dingbat crazy again, and with a better campaign, this time we win!". Whereas, with a destruction of Trump, maybe there's a bit of an awakening, making Kasich gets the nod next time; hell, even Rubio or Cruz possibly at least have a chance against Clinton
Holy shit. Could John have actually been right. Trump is ahead in some polls. Hillary is criticizing the polls. Trump has the momentum. And there might be critical emails still to be released.
If Trump wins, I think I'll get that blow job from the Iron Maiden to celebrate. If I'm lucky enough to have called this one right, then I doubt her braces will do me any harm.
The race is a lot closer, but the gap was narrowing before the latest Wienergate episode. As I write this, the betting markets show Hillary with about 84% chance of winning.
But it's true that Trump has the momentum, and I'm shitting bricks...
--> "Fuck yeah! Hate all Clinton supporters for blindly backing her." -->
No, for some, it's calculated. For Trump the GOP. I love the fiscal/economic aspects but hate the social implications. Women's issues matter too much to me. Sorry / not sorry.
GOP and Trump both need a wake up call. If HRC can take the SCOTUS to the left (or ideally) to the center (keep Roe V. Wade, let's fund Planned Parenthood, let's allow lesbian marriage and spousal rights and employer benefits, etc). so much the better. And it only side effect, is *some* extra taxes gets confiscated from the likes of TiredTraveler. Then, la-dee-fkn-dah.
Trump is up in more polls than not. I don't think anyone on the ballot in any party is going to improve America this next term; we can only hope that the next President doesn't make things any worse. I voted for Trump for three reasons: 1) Hillary is guaranteed to make things worse- all her positions in every issue run contra to our American heritage, 2) Hillary is arrogantly criminal, a pathological liar, and a shameless hypocrite, who is utterly unfit and unworthy to be President, 3)Trump is the outsider. The danger of lessons unlearned is if the parties don't learn that Americans are sick of the system supporting itself. So I didn't really vote for Trump; I voted against Hilary, against the beltway insiders, and against a corrupt system that seeks only to perpetuate it's own power without regard for the welfare of the people. I hope the majority of Americans agree and so the same. It's about the only chance this country has.
Interactive tool lets you explore how the electoral votes will effect the election state-by-state. Looks very likely to me that Colorado, Virginia, Penn, Wisconsin, New Hampshire will all go to Clinton. That's enough to put her over 270. And if she wins Florida, N.C. it would really put her over the top.
Yes, most interesting. To me this looks like the usual Red vs Blue breakdown. The last time California went to the Republican was 1988. In the elections since, the Republican will usually give up early on California.
But I wonder how this years prediction compares with how it worked out in say, the last four presidential elections? Because with a candidate like Trump I would like to think that he has very few supporters.
SJG- One interesting thing about polling is that everyone (me included) pays attention to sites like 538 that average all the polls with fancy statistics. What's happening is that there are fewer polls than previous years because there's less incentive. In other words, why pay for a poll of some random state if everyone will look at 538? There's less payoff, less incentive.
I will preface this remark by stating that I loathe both Clinton and Trump, so I am not speaking as a Trump supporter. Whoever wins on Tuesday, America loses, and I'm taking the next day off in mourning for the future of this once great country. (Actually, as a politics junkie I stay up until the wee hours on election night *every* four years and take the next day off.)
SJG's typically asinine remark that "I would like to think that [Trump] has very few supporters" reminds me of similarly out-of-touch leftists in 1972 who remarked, after Nixon's landslide victory over McGovern, that "That's impossible! No one I know voted for Nixon!" When everyone you know is a Sanders- or Stein-style looney leftie, it probably does seem implausible that Trump might win 270 electoral votes -- but as of today it looks possible.
SJG and other denizens of the extreme Left: *most* Americans do not identify themselves with socialism, "democratic" or otherwise, or with the Green Party. The vast majority of Americans are somewhere between somewhat liberal and somewhat conservative. Since Trump is also in this ideological range, and since Clinton is so completely corrupt and, I would submit, incompetent and unlikable as well, that a Trump victory is plausible, whether you like him or not (and I can't stand him). It may not appear that way in the deep blue precincts of Santa Clara County or the Upper West Side of Manhattan, but Trump has very widespread mainstream appeal.
To provide a little psephological perspective to my previous post about Santa Clara County, CA:
2000: Gore 61%, Bush 35%
2004: Kerry 64%, Bush 35%
2008: Obama 70%, McCain 29%
2012: Obama 70%, Romney 27%
In all four cases the nationwide popular vote was much closer, with the Republican candidate getting between 46% (McCain) and 51% (Bush in '04) nationally.
My point is that Santa Clara County is one of the most Democratic-voting counties in the country, so people who live there have a distorted view of the nation as a whole.
So Northern CA has a liberal bent. Just brilliant, @Deuce. Who would of known???
Random thoughts:
(1) Rumors flying that Paul Ryan might step down.
(2) If Hillary wins, the Republicans will do everything in their power to obstruct Supreme Court nominees and they will probably try to impeach Hillary right of the bat. Anyone else like Tim Kaine? I think he's a smart guy and he seems to have some support from the GOP. He's likable. So if HIllary gets impeached, Kaine might by okay. Maybe the future of the Democratic party?
George McGovern is my all time favorite presidential candidate. I was up beyond midnight that year, watching the Democratic Convention, and all the floor fights, night after night. The platform that year was unlike any other. Also remember that this was during the war in Vietnam.
But distorted view of the nation as a whole? Maybe some of us are just overly optimistic about our country, and are looking forward to people who think like MrDeuce dying out.
By the way, I found all the Republican primary candidates this time to be excessive, meaning more ridiculous than either McCain or Romney had been.
I also liked it when Romney was denouncing Trump, saying that candidates can't openly try to say the sorts of things which Romney was covertly saying in his 2012 campaign.
Corrupt? Hillary Clinton is to the Right of Obama on lots of issues. But corrupt? As politicians go she is way above average and I am looking forward to her presidency.
Jill Stein is a little bit to the Left of Bernie Sanders. And Sanders is still more moderate than many European heads of state.
And George McGovern wasn't even from Santa Clara County!
And I would be curious to see how this 2016 Vox map compares to how things went in the previous Presidential years, like in which states have switched sides.
San Francisco and Oakland are the most liberal in the state. San Mateo County is more conservative.
Santa Clara County, like Palo Alto, is still in some ways conservative. But San Jose is more liberal, though not as much so as San Francisco and Oakland. Our LE prosecutes dancers in strip clubs. They would not do that in San Francisco, as they would only prosecute the owners, and that is more difficult.
But because of having a large minority component, and especially on immigration issues, Santa Clara County is quite liberal.
Los Angeles is liberal, but not as much as Santa Clara County.
Riverside / Inland Empire and Orange County are much more conservative. San Diego is more conservative, in part because of the large military presence.
The rural parts of the state tend to be more conservative.
SJG, your penultimate post corroborates my claim that you're a leftwing extremist who is out of touch with the mainstream. For example:
"George McGovern is my all time favorite presidential candidate." -- no comment
"I found all the Republican primary candidates this time to be excessive, meaning more ridiculous than either McCain or Romney had been." -- Even Kasich? And do you really consider McCain and Romney ridiculously conservative? Wow.
"Corrupt? Hillary Clinton is to the Right of Obama on lots of issues. But corrupt?" -- Hillary used to be somewhat less leftwing than Obama, but it appears that the primary campaign against Sanders drove her permanently leftward on a host of issues, such as free college and a $15 minimum wage. I maintain that she would run a more leftist administration than Obama has -- which, of course, would suit you just fine. As for your questioning her corruption . . . well, I'm just speechless that a sentient human being in November of 2016 could possibly question her corruption! Wow again.
"And Sanders is still more moderate than many European heads of state." -- Name two European heads of state to the left of Bernie Sanders! And even if there are some, is European-style socialism something we should aspire to here? Well, I know you think it is.
"And George McGovern wasn't even from Santa Clara County! And Michael Moore isn't either." -- total non sequiturs. My point about overwhelmingly Democratic presidential voting in Santa Clara County was that it is a highly unrepresentative fragment of America and that living there gives you a distorted view of what Americans really think, as evidenced by the original dumbassery that instigated my post:
"Because with a candidate like Trump I would like to think that he has very few supporters."
This is evidence of a worldview that is totally out of touch with the American mainstream. Trump will probably get 46% or more of the popular vote, around the same level as the Republican candidate in the last four elections -- and he may well be your next President.
Newspaper endorsements for Hillary vs Trump:
Clinton 447
Trump 13
...although Trump did win the endorsement from the KKK official newspaper.
At the risk of pulling a @Steve229, just finished reading official endorsement of Hillary from "The Economist." Economist is sometimes conservative, sometimes liberal, sometimes Libertarian. Hard to characterize. I thought it was a pretty good article and here are few quotes:
"Trump has exploited America’s simmering racial tensions. His experience, temperament and character make him horribly unsuited to being the head of state of the nation that the rest of the democratic world looks to for leadership"
"A Trump government would cut taxes for the richest while imposing trade protection that would raise prices for the poorest. We disagree with him on the environment, immigration, America’s role in the world and other things besides."
"Mrs Clinton is a better candidate than she seems and better suited to cope with the awful, broken state of Washington politics "
" In Britain her ideological home would be the mainstream of the Conservative Party"
"Mrs Clinton is a self-confessed incrementalist. She believes in the power of small changes compounded over time to bring about larger ones. "
"SJG, your penultimate post corroborates my claim that you're a leftwing extremist who is out of touch with the mainstream."
Is being in touch with this "mainstream" an objective of yours? Is that your standard for what is right and what is wrong?
$15min wage and free college ( debt free college ), are those things you object to?
The Right Wing media has done a huge job of demonizing Hillary Clinton, just beyond belief.
The direction France is going, and then Netherlands and Scandanavia are all well to the left of Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein. If we want a sustainable democracy we have very little choice but to follow their lead.
In fact, during the 1960's, the US was going in that direction. What happened was the unveiling of Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy, playing on our country's history of bad race relations, to start driving things to the right, by using coded language. This is still playing out today, or I should say it seems to have peaked, in the Donald Trump campaign.
Deuce wrote, "My point about overwhelmingly Democratic presidential voting in Santa Clara County was that it is a highly unrepresentative fragment of America and that living there gives you a distorted view of what Americans really think, as evidenced by the original dumbassery that instigated my post"
Deuce, again, do you think it desirable to keep one's thinking close to the median?
We all know that various regions have their voting tendencies. We see this in the sorts of people they elect. And then in most places there are big differences between rural and urban voters. We all know this. But you are trying to draw some implication from this, saying that one is wrong if they don't agree with a statistical norm.
Deuce wrote:
"
"Because with a candidate like Trump I would like to think that he has very few supporters."
This is evidence of a worldview that is totally out of touch with the American mainstream. Trump will probably get 46% or more of the popular vote, around the same level as the Republican candidate in the last four elections -- and he may well be your next President.
"
Well yes, I would hope that no one votes for Trump. I would expect more from my countrymen and countrywomen.
As far as what actually will happen, none of us know. I cannot even imagine anything worse than Trump actually becoming President. And even if he were only to get like 30%, I would still see that as indicating that this country has a serious problem.
If you divide the states into Red, Blue, and Battle Ground, then this map does look different from ones I have seen in recent Presidential elections. Usually they show more Red, and much less Blue. So usually it looks like the Republican's have a huge advantage shown in the polls, and then for the Democrats to win they would have to prevail in most all of the Battle Ground states, with little safety margin.
This map looks to be the opposite way.
Now again, none of us know what will actually happen, and because of two things:
1. Extremeness of Trump and his strange appeal
2. Right Wing Media demonizing Clinton
It may be that this election is much harder to predict and so the polls could prove to be less reliable than they previously have been. And then we have this gutting of the 1965 Voting Rights Act being played out for the first time.
Some people face to face have told me that they are voting for Trump, and I've been really surprised. Like one was a homeless man, believing that all problems are caused by immigrants from Mexico. But I also know that Latino voters will be a huge factor this round.
Anyway, I would like to compare this 2016 map to those from previous elections, to see which states have shifted sides, to get the much different starting numbers.
Again, usually the Republican's are shown to have far more states and votes locked in.
Usually California is presented as a battle ground state, although in the last 6 rounds, the Republican did beyond a point have to give up on it. But in this it is being shown as already blue. Huge number of votes.
And we all know that these elections tighten, because of all the polling and message focusing.
SJG I can't believe why anyone would listen to anything you have to say.
Do you know what "non-sequitur" means as the way Mr Deuce has stated already above? For a self proclaimed intelligent individual like you have stated several times in the past, you'd think you'd get a clue, but common sense seems to have passed you by. Good luck on winning any argument with any person of intelligence, because you're going to need a lot of it.
I am looking forward to a massive democratic landslide, the likes of 1964, 1932, or the 1940 mid-term.
We just need to get democrats out to the polls, and voting for the nominee, instead of for protest candidates.
After Hilary Clinton is elected, just like Michael Moore said, we can work through the Bernie Sander's Organization ( clearly inspired by McGovern Summer 1972 ) and keep progressive pressure on the entire government.
Again, I said the Republican primary candidates were extreme, in comparison to McCain and Romney, not in comparison to how people in Santa Clara County California have voted. And I've never claimed that I can predict how people will vote. That Trump has gotten this far has taken my completely by surprise. The one I want is still George McGovern.
But about how Californians vote, an interesting conversation, about a closely related factor, church attendance.
In the 1970's all church attendance tanked.
In the years since, the Roman Catholic Church has gotten a portion of its old levels back, but just a portion.
Mainline Protestantism really has not gotten anything back, far as I can see. And so even with paid up mortgages, most totter on the brink of insolvency.
But what has come back extremely strong, and in my view usually using despicable means, are the new evangelical churches. And as far as I am concerned, their members are nuts.
But I was discussing this with a woman and she told me about her daughter living in the Central Valley, and she says that all kinds of church attendance is very strong there.
I finally got her to specify, Bakersfield, Fresno, and Madera.
Now, the Central Valley is always more conservative than the Bay Area and Los Angeles. It was the vote from that Central Valley which elected Ronald Reagan Governor, twice.
The places she mentioned are all, like most of the cities in that region, on Hwy 99.
Bakersfield is known as a really conservative place. Particularly known for these Oil Field Rough Necks. Some are just people who have opted for a lucrative but very physically demanding type of work. But in there are also some who are just really case hardened and difficult people.
Fresno is interesting because it has long had a reputation for being a tough town, with police that patrol each night with the SWAT team. Kind of a war zone. So I would not expect that, now being one of the state's largest cities, to have that conservative of a vote. Highly Latino too.
But directly adjacent to Fresno is Clovis, where I am told that many of states agribusiness owners live, and extremely conservative.
I think of there being two strip clubs in Fresno, and one right at the airport and directly adjacent to Clovis:
Wow! Just wow on how close this is coming down to the end. Many said Hillary would win in a land slide. Can't wait to see all those celebrities leave the US if Trump wins.
Florida is the one people think may have caused a problem, and this Jill Stein.
I think Bernie Sanders deserves a medal, for how at the Convention he made sure people knew they should vote for Clinton, and then for his efforts in Colorado today.
Now, this is curious, Kansas and Nebraska had been called for Clinton, but now they have shifted to Trump. This is strange. As of now Trump has that entire strip from Dakotas to Texas.
Bing saying Clinton 104, Trump 129, Clinton 89.7% chance of victory.
But Pennsylvania had been very highly Clinton, now only light blue.
Clinton will probably get Colorado and New Mexico, but Trump has Wyoming.
Bing still holding to 89.7% Clinton, but other media going as far as 51% chances for Trump?
This sounds strange, suggestive of the 2000 debacle?
If you divide the states into Red, Blue, and Battle Ground, then this map does look different from ones I have seen in recent Presidential elections. Usually they show more Red, and much less Blue. So usually it looks like the Republican's have a huge advantage shown in the polls, and then for the Democrats to win they would have to prevail in most all of the Battle Ground states, with little safety margin. -- This is ludicrous. Everyone knows about the Democrats' "Blue Wall", the 18 states with 242 electoral votes that have voted Democrat six elections in a row. Arguably since 1992 it's the Republicans that face an uphill climb to win the presidency.
Usually California is presented as a battle ground state . . . -- Nope, not since 1988.
I am looking forward to a massive democratic landslide, the likes of 1964, 1932, or the 1940 mid-term. -- No comment, except to point out that there was no mid-term election in 1940.
Now, this is curious, Kansas and Nebraska had been called for Clinton, but now they have shifted to Trump. This is strange. -- This is beyond strange. It's fantasy. No one *ever* called KS and NE for Clinton.
Bing saying Clinton 104, Trump 129, Clinton 89.7% chance of victory. -- This post was around 10:30 (ET), when 538.com had Trump's chances at over 50%! More fantasy.
SJG, if I knew as little about politics as you do, I would STFU.
I just want to keep this post in the face of all the haters for as long as possible:
VinceMichael
Rockstar
Dougster
Randommember
twentyfive
Dominic77
and all the rest.
America got it right this time. Republican grand slam.
I don't hate dickbreath, he is just another asshole ascending to the throne, I'm waiting for him to find out how little power he has until he tweets the nuclear launch codes to his good buddy, Putin.
I have nothing but admiration for the voting population by doing the right thing by keeping away the established corruption of lifetime politicians. It's exciting to see the Hollywood liberals cry in their cereal.
Hey Meat you need to temper it a bit, if anybody loses because Trump was elected, it will be all of us and remember if he fucks up which every president does at one point, he will own it, so be glad that the election is over, but be careful what you wish for.
Great call, JS69! I never believed that Trump would win until about 11pm (Eastern), when FL, NC, and OH had been called for him and he was leading in PA, MI, and WI. Around this same time, ace political prognosticator SJG was calling Kansas and Nebraska for Clinton and quoting bing.com to the effect that Clinton had an 89.7% chance of winning :)
Bing was saying 89.7% chance of Clinton winning. Don't know what that was based on. But I could not keep watching it too late, but as I did watch it, it never changed.
Clinton was winning in PA, and had a chance of getting MI and WI. Don't know about FL, NC, and OH. Kansas and Nebraska had been called for her.
I saw on CNN, 82% of the vote went for Clinton in Philadelphia. I think that was the entire county too.
Usually, the longer the vote counting goes on, the more it favors the democrat, because the republican was getting an early boost from the absentee ballots. So as it did not really follow that pattern this time, in some places, suggests some questions.
Clinton should have been able to get all the Obama states, then plus a few more because Trump is such a widely disliked and extreme candidate, and because so many Republican leaders spoke out against him. Need to look close at those Obama states she lost.
So the upset states which Trump got were FL, PA, NC, WI, OH.
According to Democracy Now, some pollsters were still saying 99% chance of a Clinton victory.
Don't know what happened. I do know that the often heard negative stuff about Hillary, she being an extremely centrist candidate, is just because people listen to Right Wing Media, and because she is a woman.
Sure, she is not warm and fuzzy. That's just the way she is. That's why she was able to campaign for Barry Goldwater. But she is a great lawyer. She does not have that ebullience which her husband has. But mostly this perception is just because she is a woman and so she relates to power differently. Her husband is an expert in glad handing. She is not like that.
I don't know about this 538.com, or why it's predications differed so much from Bings.
The center did not hold. Democracy requires and informed and rational electorate. We now live in a country where complete idiots have been able to vent their ignorance in polling places and elect their guy as President.
I was actually watching CNN on a public place big screen, with a couple of Trump people standing next to me. They were nuts.
And so much is unknown about Trump, like his foreign finances and business dealings, that there probably are grounds for impeachment right now.
Trump's answer to the suspicious police killings of unarmed African American's was just Stop and Frisk. And he had pledged at the convention that "America will be safe."
Well I believe that things are going to explode. The objective of both non-violent and violent protests is always to provoke the other side.
So expect to see National Guard and regular military used, in defiance of all laws, as occupation forces.
I predict civil war at home, secession of border regions, and extremely dangerous overseas wars, as Trump gets baited and tries to shore up his support, which will last only about 24 hours from his inauguration.
This is the beginning of HELL!
So get yourself a wheelbarrow, in case you want to use C-notes to buy a loaf of bread, and expect forgiveness on all types of debts ( student loan, credit cards, mortgages and T-Bill obligations ) because those banks won't exist anymore and that currency and that government won't exist anymore.
Gold is too heavy to carry around, and too soft to make any kind of weapons out of. Best to get rid of it now. If you are going to die, do it while attacking with a Kalashnikov, not while trying to guard a pile of gold ingots.
Whenever sensible democracy is eventually restored, there will have to be a general amnesty and debt forgiveness.
People have always said that the Mexican border region is like a country of its own. Never seen that directly, but could be. I am sure that now that is where secession will start.
And know, what has just happened in the United States does threaten the political stability of both Canada and Mexico too, as well as in the rest of the world.
I must act, before that wall goes up and before things get any weirder, must have a safety strategy, must become mobile and able to operate across borders.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khK9fIgo…
We are either going to have a working multi-racial and multi-cultural democracy, which pretty much has to be a social democracy, or we are going to have a bunch of White Idiots running something like apartheid.
Did you really just say that the problem is with the White people who voted for Trump??
The problem is with the White people who voted for Trump????? Realllyyy?????
Perhaps the problem is with people (like you) thinking that the "problem" can be boiled down to something as simple as "the White people" and how they voted. Perhaps YOUR problem is that your viewpoint is fringe-thinking, at best, and shared by very few.
Sorry, my friend, but right now, one problem is racial intolerance in either direction and the lack of respect for the rule of law. Based on all of your ranting over the past months, perhaps it is time you find another nation in which to reside that is warmer to your quasi-socialist, racist, backward-thinking tripe. Your 15 minutes is over and your ignorance is showing in spite of your obvious intelligence and formal education.
You claim to admire Clinton's and Obama's speeches, but you don't seem able to take their messages to heart. What do you admire, their posture and diction? Listen to their words!
I don't expect you or the rest of the far left to learn anything from this experience or to listen to those of us in the center. For you, it's your way or the highway. You are just as wrong-headed as anybody spouting from the far right. You can't see it and neither can they. The people have spoken (and you're not one of them).
I guess the basket of deplorables was bigger than anyone thought - no one gave Trump a chance even from the beginning of the Republican primary; the Republican establishment was against him; he barely received any major newspaper endorsements; and zero endorsements from the Forbes 100 CEOs - I guess picking on the avg white person for everything wrong w/ America finally bit the libs in the ass.
SJG, don't let the door hit your dumb ass on your way to Mexico, that haven of democracy and rule of law :) Why do leftists always say they're going to leave the country when their guy (or gal) loses but they never actually leave?
The center did hold, and voted for Trump (in enough states to win a clear Electoral College majority). I don't like him either, but there's no denying (unless you're a looneytunes leftist) that he is a man of the center.
And no, no one EVER called Kansas and Nebraska for Clinton! Trump won both of them convincingly, something like 60% to 35%. Perhaps you're thinking of Thomas Frank's leftwing screed "What's the Matter with Kansas?", in which his leftie brain tries to figure out why the good citizens of Kansas keep voting Republican even though their economic interests are obviously better served by the Democrats. Hmm . . . I'm guessing it's racism :)
Rule to live by: When in political doubt, do the opposite of what SJG says.
This anti-Hillary video, its legitimate. Its not being unfair. Clinton was stupid in this entire email issue.
But the reason the video and the allegations really hurt her, are simply because she is female. Male politicians do stupid things all the time, and they get caught, but it does not seem to stick. With a woman, the other side can play to sterotypes. They were able to whip up a huge amount of personal animosity, and this probably cost her about 80 electoral votes.
I say this also because I have been involved in trying to oust some local candidates, some being women, and my still trying not to cross that line into sexism.
And so no the center did not hold, someone like McCain, Romney, or Hillary Clinton of the DLC, was not elected. Instead a wacko who has never before been elected to anything has won.
Mr. Deuce, you misunderstand me. I would never give up on the US. I simply need to become transnational. Mexico has its own strengths and weaknesses. But I have long planned to be operating there. And I do anticipate things coming unglued in the US, rather like 1968, as a minimum. But maybe much more so.
They have someone in NC who has admitted that they changed laws, "To make it harder for blacks to vote." Even with the gutting of the specific controls arising from the 1965 Voting Rights Act, such actions are still unlawful.
And then the one I find the most strange is PA. Usually when the counting starts the Republican starts out with a huge lead, then it shifts more and more to the Democrat. This time it went exactly the opposite way. Now there are plausible explanaitons, but I would like to hear them.
If it is decided that Trump did not win a majority of the electoral vote, then he cannot be installed as President. That Clinton conceded makes absolutely zero difference. People end their campaigns and then restart them. It is the voters who decide who wins, not the candidates.
Bing did call first Kansas for Clinton, and then after it flipped to Trump, they called Nebraska for Clinton. I was surprised.
This right wing hate media really blossomed in response to white anger over having a black man as President. The influence it has had is beyond measure.
Obama had carried Indiana. Clinton, a candidate to the right of Obama, and running against a buffoon, should have been able to get everything Obama had, plus more.
Thomas Frank is arguing that conservative moderate income voters are voting on the basis of cultural identity issues, and voting against their economic interests. So they vote for a prohibition on abortion and for prayer in schools, but what they get is lowering of high income taxes and increasing college costs.
Remember that during this country's years of greatest economic growth, Eisenhower - Kennedy, we had a very strong downward wealth transfer mechanism, top personal income tax rates exceeding 90%.
Like Thom Hartmann explains, in the earliest years of this country, a middle-class was created by the availability of cheap land. But by the late 1800's that was no more, and so you saw our country going the way most every society has, splitting into the very rich and the very poor.
And so in response to what was happening, you had the Granger Movement, and Teddy Roosevelt creating most of the federal regulatory agencies, and being a Trust Buster.
But then that Progressive Wing of the Republican Party died when Roosevelt split the party by running against Taft.
What recreated the middle-class was Franklin Roosevelt with progressive income tax, transferring wealth downwards. And this of course causes a huge economic expansion.
Like Hillary Clinton said, the economy grows from the middle outwards, meaning both up and down. She wanted to restore her husband's extra 2% tax on high incomes.
Actually the economy grows best from the very bottom, like with Food Stamps. Obama did a good job in preventing another Great Depression. The further down the money goes, the faster it recirculates.
But Clintion wants to get elected, and the poor are always looked at as a social menace, show she does not talk about them, she talks about the middle.
Now not everyone goes along with Thomas Frank, like Doug Henwood, and like:
Most interesting. Where they take exception to Thomas Frank is that they say that these people are voting their "interests", because their interests are cultural and identity based, not economically based. As such, I am inclined to agree with them. But Frank's book is still important because it shows us how these interests work.
But she was trying to understand this Trump and ultra conservative phenomenon, and so she ended up I think in South West Louisiana, at an evangelical church. Why would a conservative Christian group ever support someone like Trump? Jimmy Carter and his Baptist Church in Plains Georgia would oppose everything about Trump.
So what she found is
1. With this group in Louisiana, their government is run by the petrochemical industry. So while they see this industry as benevolent as it is a major employer, they see the government in only negative terms. So it is alot like the plantation economies the South is known for.
2. And then I add that their religion is based on making professions and on social conformity. That religion exists everywhere in the country. But in the South that is the only kind of religion which has ever been popular. And of course this goes back to slavery.
So they see themselves as a persecuted minority, and then someone like Trump, though different from them, he is still their hero, as they see the government in only negative terms.
So she feels that Clinton should not have said "Basket of Deplorables". Rather, one has to look at the situation these people are living in, the only reality they have ever known.
See most of the rest of us see the greatest of America and all hopes and dreams as coming from the Civil Rights Movement, the Anti-War Movement, and the Women's Movement. These were the defining times for people like myself, and like Bill and Hillary Clinton.
But for these evangelical conservative Trump supporters, that kind of stuff passed them by. So though we may disagree with them and see their voting patters as problematic, we should not hold this against them personally.
For those of you who want to leave, please, leave.
Go to Canada - but understand that they have single payer health insurance run by the government and it usually takes one to three years of waiting for approval of many medical services - and be careful, Canada DEPORTS illegal aliens.
Or you can go to Mexico - but avoid the 70% of Mexico that is controlled by violent drug gangs, and be very careful about your paperwork - Mexico puts illegal aliens in wretched prisons for months before DEPORTING them. If you choose any of the immigrant friendly nations of Europe, please avoid public places where Islamic Terrorists murder people and be prepared for tax rates over 50%.
Enjoy yourselves and write us a note occasionally.
Finally happened, sjg ignored. Yes, I am no longer doing political posts, at least for now, but the encyclopedia sjg posted here was the last straw. GONE!
I would like to thank all those who stayed home and didn't vote. Trump wouldn't be president elect without you.
As far as all the entitled kids who aren't getting free college, free tuition, free this, free that, and are protesting a fair election, welcome to how republicans view things. Go to college to get a job and pay taxes to help pay for schools and colleges you already went to.
Entitled kids aren't the ones who need free college, its the ones who are trying to advance themselves by working hard but don't happen to have rich parents. These people who go to school and advance themselves are the ones who will be paying taxes. That's only one of the reasons why what Hillary Clinton was saying was right, that "the economy grows from the middle out."
That people would stay home when they could vote to stop Trump was a huge mistake.
"all those who stayed home and didn't vote. Trump wouldn't be president elect without you."
That is 100% correct.
Both candidates were terrible, America wouldn't have won regardless. I do find it completely comical that he's gonna try to bring America together. For as long as I've known about Trump, he's always been about bringing attention to himself, he's right up there with the Kardashians as far as attention whores. He's gonna get all the attention he wants now.
Trump is horrible, and this is a disaster of the first magnitude. I am glad that people are already protesting.
But Hillary Clinton is an extremely centrist candidate with a most reasonable set of plans. Warm and fuzzy, no she is not. Innocent of the effects of political power, no.
But I still feel that most of the criticism of her is unfair, and orchestrated by this Right Wing Hate Media, which fully blossomed during Obama's terms. The anti-Hillary message is just evoking stereotypes about women ambitious for power.
Larry, if you or others have specific claims to refute this interpretation, I am willing to listen.
Is their any talk about challenging the vote counts in any states? I couldn't watch that much Tuesday night, but the one which looks the most curious, is Pennsylvania. Almost always, the Democrat gains as the counting continues, whereas the Republican starts out with a huge advantage from the absentee votes and then the rural counties. This time Pennsylvania did exactly the opposite. There I plausible explanations, but I have yet to hear them.
SJG, I have given one very plausible explanation already for your allegation that Clinton's early lead turned into a deficit (I'm not actually aware that this is the case): the urban vote, primarily from Philadelphia, which was heavily Democratic, was counted first. Only as votes from rural and small-town PA came in did Trump overtake her
Here's another plausible explanation: Clinton voters tend to vote earlier in the day because they're less likely to have jobs. Trump voters tended to vote later in the day because they had to go to work first :)
MrDeuce, that counting of the urban votes first, such as by electronic counting, is possible. Like I said, there are plausible explanations. I still just want to know that these curiosities are being looked at.
About when people voted, I don't think that could apply as I am not aware that there is any counting until the polls close.
Papi, I have fully immersive f2f public responsibilities, with zero private life, except perhaps for online. So travels will have to wait.
But certainly after this horrible election outcome, my plans for becoming transnational have intensified.
Not really interested in a strip club tour, or sex tourism, rather it is all about my own businesses. Strippers are just an easy way to connect with local people and develop local contacts.
I have very big plans. But the reason such plans are feasible is simply because I am focused on winning some very real conflicts. I don't sell my time to get money to pay for escapisms.
Merida has just started. Watch out for any Reichstag Fire. This could be our last election ever.
This guy could blow up the White House, because he wants to live in Trump Tower, and then declare Marshal Law and suspend the Constitution.
And those at the bottom need to be ready to stand up for themselves using Any Means Necessary, and not be subjected to the bogus sciences of Social Darwinism and Eugenics.
I have my own ongoing commitments and obligations. But this is still a time to speed up my preparations for going transnational.
All it would take is the President, the Democrats, and just a bit more than 1/3 of the Republicans and the Constitution could be amended right now to eliminate the electoral college, effective for this election.
We could ask those most qualified, the 8 sitting justices of the Supreme Court, to write the amendment.
Sometimes it is strange crises which force progress. Bring the United States forward out of the 19th Century.
Otherwise with this claim of weekly contact with Russians and the FBI announcements, it's "What did Trump know and when did he know it?" As it will be necessary to impeach him and require the same congressional 2/3rds.
Obama missed his FDR moment when he failed to nationalize or even re-regulate the banks. Well now on his way out he can have an even greater moment by finally fixing our system so that every vote counts, and averting a disaster of epic proportions.
Governing the most powerful nation in the world is nothing like a sporting match, as the stakes are so much higher. We all need therefore to think very hard about what is needed, and then do it.
214 comments
Latest
Have you seen the demographics of blacks, Hispanics and all women voters? The Donald will have a hard row to hoe.
On balance, I think my having called the Cavs victory tips the scales in my favor.
Trump is both dangerous and a joke. He wins the Republican faithful and nothing else
Hillary, as repulsive as she is, wins the Democratic faithful. Independents hold their noses and vote for her also, as do a good percentage of moderate republicans
Hillary in a landslide in 2016. Democrats also make gains in Congress initially, riding on the wave of revulsion
She goes on to be well hated, and whoever Republicans put up in 2020 -- assuming they don't put up someone like Trump again -- wins handily. Here's hoping it's Kasich ... Cruz is also enough of a stinker that Hillary could at least put up a fight. Kasich would crush.
I doubt Kasich has any chance.
"I'm convinced the @realDonaldTrump dream scenario is to win the popular vote but lose the election. All the glory. None of the work".
Trump's followers on the other are likely to come out in bigger numbers.
That said, Clinton, contrary to her usual dipshit self actually seems to be playing it pretty well against Trump.
It'll come down to which of the two wants it more in my opinion. Based on history Clinton seems to be okay with screwing up and losing. Trump not so much.
But there's been 3 terrorist attacks in Europe in less than 10 days. Trump may have convinced enough voters that unless something is done fsst, it's going to happen in America too.
A few months ago I never thought Trump could win. Now, I think there's a chance
The Democrat machine in most large cities is very effective and delivers majority votes in urban precincts, whether the voters show up or not, and those cities are often enough to carry entire states. Then you have to add in the powerful attacks that will be delivered over the next 3 months by both the liberal press and the the Soros and friends funded Political Action Committees. It will be difficult for the RNC or Trump to counter the coming flood of negative "news." This will be compounded because the Kochs and several other major Republican backers appear to be "sitting this one out."
Trump has succeeded to date against "only" the press attacks and primary candidates, but against the combined: press, "opinion media," DNC attack ads, Democrat PACs and the Hillary campaign, I don't know if The Donald can keep his kool.
I think the only path to the White House for Trump will have to include a new, and really big, "Hillary scandal" And I am not even sure that will be enough. The Clintons seem to have a special Teflon coating that prevents any kind of indictment or scandal from sticking.
I don't think it's coincidence either. ISIS wants Trump as president. They are starting to get clobbered on the battlefield, but if they can hang in to November I expect them to keep up the pressure and help get the Trump voters out.
Police shootings have got to play into Trump's hands more than Clinton's as well.
Thing is, Trump sounds like an incoherent, rambling, bullshitting, kid when he's talking off script and he has no curiosity about actually studying the issues. We'll see if he can get though the debates in late Sept.
I agree with that. But the funny thing is that it seems to help him. :-)
You just think he'll win because you're hearing from a lot of cranky old white guys. I'm more worried than some of my friends because I think the number of potential Trump voters is higher than they think.
Trump's constituency is basically poorly-educated white men. The evangelicals are a wild card because they *shouldn't* support Trump if they were internally consistent. But his choice of Pence could galvanize some support. Add to the fact that a lot of "evangelicals" are actually not very religious (i.e., they are actually poorly-educated whites that "cling to God and guns" and don't actually understand Christian theology).
So Trump will dominate among poorly-educated white males and pick up some older white female "evangelicals". Unfortunately, there are a lot of those people. But Hillary will win with a coalition of people of color, younger women, older but well-educated secular women, and well-educated white males.
It'll be closer than it should be for a competent and intelligent (if somewhat flawed) policy wonk (Hillary for those unable to infer from context) vs a con-man entertainer (Trump).
Remember, Trump got more primary votes than any other Republican candidate largely because the primaries lasted so damn long. He didn't even win a majority of Republican primary voters. His campaign is being run incompetently. I think he's maxed out his popularity unless a black swan event happens and low-information voters in the middle switch.
This election should be a no-brainer. The fact that it isn't says something really sad.
Hey now. I drive a 2007 Camry. Definitely a chick magnet.
"Hey now. I drive a 2007 Camry. Definitely a chick magnet."
--
Don't laugh at that :)
My last 3 cars have been:
Toyota Camry
Acura RL
Lexus RX350
The Camry was the best chick magnet :)
To Nina and the point about your grandfather being Jewish
I reread this entire thread please explain what I missed.
My previous car was a Transam. It looked great and was fun to drive. It cost a fortune in maintenance. I had it in the car repair shop every month after only 6 or 7 years. The Transam was assembled in Canada. The Toyota in Georgia.
The Transam had smoke under the car seat before I even drove it off the dealer lot. Then I drove through hail going home. It was two bad omens in my opinion. However I did have a stripper shake her butt against the front if the car. Her approval. I also let at least 2 or 3 strippers drive the car. Everyone wanted to drive it. Some wanted to race. I wasn't trying to buy the NASCAR pace car but it was the same type for a few years.
As far as the democrat voters. Most are poor in my opinion or on some type of government assistance. That's why Romney was flabbergasted when he figured out half the population wasn't working and collecting unemployment, Medicare, welfare, or social security, or some type of assistance. That's why the democrats are so eager to raise taxes on the rich republicans and allow all the illegal immigrants to become legal. That could be 11 million more poor people all voting for democrats because they see the democrats as the party that gives lots of freebies at the expense of everyone else.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/01/08/t…
The major one currently looks to be for control of the Supreme Court. Scalia's seat is out for grabs, and Ginsberg, Kennedy and Breyer can all potentially retire within the next 4 years. So there is a potential of the court going 6-3 liberal or conservative leaning depending on who wins the presidency. Both parties are already using this to scare their base into voting. My household is fairly evenly split Democrat and Republican so I see the propaganda on both sides.
Second looks to be control of the Senate. The Democrats see Donald Trump as being a weakness they can exploit to further drive their base to the polls. So I expect both parties to have a high turnout to the polls. What remains to be seen is how the rest of the non-partisan electorate vote.
I believe one advantage is that many moderate Republicans may actually hold their nose and vote for Hillary over Trump. As a moderate Republican I know I am considering voting on her. In most years if I see a bad candidate I would vote for a third party candidate instead. If Kasich would have been the candidate, that would be a no-brainer.
However right Trump and the extreme fringe of the Republican party scares me. Electing Trump puts Pence one step away from the Presidency. Considering how volatile Trump is, there is a very high chance he will do something very early in his term that gets him impeached and places Pence as President.
But the stakes are so high, not a time to be idle.
SJG
Hitler - The Rise (Full Film)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSjkpaXl…
AC/DC - Girls Got Rhythm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jaid8ZZd…
SJG
Doctors and lawyers run in my family. Lucky me to be surrounded by so much success. :)
The electoral college is ugly for Republicans, and the Donald had trouble in Wisconsin and Ohio in the primaries. Florida is looking to go Hillary. When the Democrats start strategically attacking Trump, it could get ugly.
I almost think he's a Hillary operative. She couldn't beat anyone else. But he's awful.
Nate Silver at 538 (probably the smartest guy at using Big Data to call elections) has Trump winning Florida, Ohio, Penn and winning the election. It's a snapshot, but utterly frightening.
And, frankly, that's bone chilling. Trump is the first President in a long time that could seriously damage the US. I know the conservadudes on her have their stupid "Hillary is a bit rationale" and some even believe crap like she's a murderer (who somehow only kills he former business partner's dog walker -- wtf?) but she is a NORMAL politician. Like Obama or Bush or Bill C. the republic will march on with Hillary. Trump is the black swan - he could fuck us up seriously. Hillary will just do the occasional thing that makes you old white conservadudes grumpy.
Don't vote Johnson, don't vote Stein, FUCKING VOTE HILLARY!!!
Trump WILL fuck us up. And if you're a cranky conservadude remember that TRUMP AIN'T A CONSERVATIVE!!! You have NO conservative option that can win. So just don't vote moron!
For example, I have always voted in all but 2 elections (both were spring time) and ditto for giving blood, whereas my SO and her like minded friends are fair likely to skip both. I've also voted in every presidential primary. This was the first primary my liberal friends voted in. So I see where John is coming from.
I'm feeling better about Trump everyday. So now, as long as Trump doesn't arm every rogue state with nuclear weapons and cause WWIII, I feel better and better about him each passing week.
It's a fact that a higher percentage of conservatives vote. Hell, if the slightest inconvenience occurs, like rain, the percentage of left-leaning voters goes down. Conservatives vote no matter what, and get absentee ballots when they can't, or are just too lazy to go in (I'm in the latter category -- I have never voted at a polling station, I'm a permanent absentee voter)
I bet you can't even name three cases where you: A) actually disagree with the Notorious RBG and B) understand the constitutional basis for the arguments for and against her position.
But noooo... you're so scared about SCOTUS appointments that you are going to vote to turn over our country to Vladimir Putin!
I am actually a loyal American. I don't want our great country to become another province of Russia.
I guess I should just say do svidaniya to America because of people like you. I'm going to start brushing up on my Cyrillic script now...
------------------------------------------
I might have the same opinion if the nominee were Jeb or Rubio or Romney or Kasich. There are just no more words left to describe how unqualified Trump is for office and how utterly unfit he is as a world leader. This is the most surreal and scary election of my lifetime.
SJG
There is a series currently on PBS called "The Contenders" that profiles previous presidential candidates (it's pretty interesting) - they recently profiled Ross Perot's run in 1992 where some of his campaign people were interviewed in the present and they said Perot never wanted to become president but did want a platform to share his views and force attention to certain topics (budget; NAFTA; etc).
But if it turns out that I was rong in my prediction, Mary Jane is the one who made this post.
-----------------------
JS: I have the exact opposite prediction (and keep in mind, I hate Clinton and have not voted for a democrat in any election in over 20 years, though I do often vote libertarian when I hate candidates from both parties):
Trump is both dangerous and a joke. He wins the Republican faithful and nothing else
Hillary, as repulsive as she is, wins the Democratic faithful. Independents hold their noses and vote for her also, as do a good percentage of moderate republicans
Hillary in a landslide in 2016. Democrats also make gains in Congress initially, riding on the wave of revulsion
She goes on to be well hated, and whoever Republicans put up in 2020 -- assuming they don't put up someone like Trump again -- wins handily. Here's hoping it's Kasich ... Cruz is also enough of a stinker that Hillary could at least put up a fight. Kasich would crush.
If you think it's the end, you could be right. I just popped in to spread good cheer. Or give everyone a reason to visit a strip club and forget about it. :)
https://apple.news/AwSDGTUmkTLetCnRLKQZn…
https://www.google.com/amp/www.foxnews.c…
Good riddance, Donald
Hillary is not as bad as Trump, but she ain't qualified to be president either. I'll be voting for Gary Johnson.
BTW, I meant electoral votes and not delegates in my last post.
If it's close, Republican primary voters learn nothing ... "oh, we voted for a lunatic and we missed the white house by THIS MUCH; we can vote dingbat crazy again, and with a better campaign, this time we win!". Whereas, with a destruction of Trump, maybe there's a bit of an awakening, making Kasich gets the nod next time; hell, even Rubio or Cruz possibly at least have a chance against Clinton
If Trump wins, I think I'll get that blow job from the Iron Maiden to celebrate. If I'm lucky enough to have called this one right, then I doubt her braces will do me any harm.
But it's true that Trump has the momentum, and I'm shitting bricks...
http://predictwise.com/
No, for some, it's calculated. For Trump the GOP. I love the fiscal/economic aspects but hate the social implications. Women's issues matter too much to me. Sorry / not sorry.
GOP and Trump both need a wake up call. If HRC can take the SCOTUS to the left (or ideally) to the center (keep Roe V. Wade, let's fund Planned Parenthood, let's allow lesbian marriage and spousal rights and employer benefits, etc). so much the better. And it only side effect, is *some* extra taxes gets confiscated from the likes of TiredTraveler. Then, la-dee-fkn-dah.
:)
I love women.
SJG
Interactive tool lets you explore how the electoral votes will effect the election state-by-state. Looks very likely to me that Colorado, Virginia, Penn, Wisconsin, New Hampshire will all go to Clinton. That's enough to put her over 270. And if she wins Florida, N.C. it would really put her over the top.
Yes, most interesting. To me this looks like the usual Red vs Blue breakdown. The last time California went to the Republican was 1988. In the elections since, the Republican will usually give up early on California.
But I wonder how this years prediction compares with how it worked out in say, the last four presidential elections? Because with a candidate like Trump I would like to think that he has very few supporters.
SJG
Michael Moore
http://www.democracynow.org/shows/2016/1…
SJG, @TxTitty is just kidding :)
SJG- One interesting thing about polling is that everyone (me included) pays attention to sites like 538 that average all the polls with fancy statistics. What's happening is that there are fewer polls than previous years because there's less incentive. In other words, why pay for a poll of some random state if everyone will look at 538? There's less payoff, less incentive.
SJG's typically asinine remark that "I would like to think that [Trump] has very few supporters" reminds me of similarly out-of-touch leftists in 1972 who remarked, after Nixon's landslide victory over McGovern, that "That's impossible! No one I know voted for Nixon!" When everyone you know is a Sanders- or Stein-style looney leftie, it probably does seem implausible that Trump might win 270 electoral votes -- but as of today it looks possible.
SJG and other denizens of the extreme Left: *most* Americans do not identify themselves with socialism, "democratic" or otherwise, or with the Green Party. The vast majority of Americans are somewhere between somewhat liberal and somewhat conservative. Since Trump is also in this ideological range, and since Clinton is so completely corrupt and, I would submit, incompetent and unlikable as well, that a Trump victory is plausible, whether you like him or not (and I can't stand him). It may not appear that way in the deep blue precincts of Santa Clara County or the Upper West Side of Manhattan, but Trump has very widespread mainstream appeal.
2000: Gore 61%, Bush 35%
2004: Kerry 64%, Bush 35%
2008: Obama 70%, McCain 29%
2012: Obama 70%, Romney 27%
In all four cases the nationwide popular vote was much closer, with the Republican candidate getting between 46% (McCain) and 51% (Bush in '04) nationally.
My point is that Santa Clara County is one of the most Democratic-voting counties in the country, so people who live there have a distorted view of the nation as a whole.
Random thoughts:
(1) Rumors flying that Paul Ryan might step down.
(2) If Hillary wins, the Republicans will do everything in their power to obstruct Supreme Court nominees and they will probably try to impeach Hillary right of the bat. Anyone else like Tim Kaine? I think he's a smart guy and he seems to have some support from the GOP. He's likable. So if HIllary gets impeached, Kaine might by okay. Maybe the future of the Democratic party?
But distorted view of the nation as a whole? Maybe some of us are just overly optimistic about our country, and are looking forward to people who think like MrDeuce dying out.
Michael Moore in Trumpland
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/11/4/mi…
By the way, I found all the Republican primary candidates this time to be excessive, meaning more ridiculous than either McCain or Romney had been.
I also liked it when Romney was denouncing Trump, saying that candidates can't openly try to say the sorts of things which Romney was covertly saying in his 2012 campaign.
Corrupt? Hillary Clinton is to the Right of Obama on lots of issues. But corrupt? As politicians go she is way above average and I am looking forward to her presidency.
Jill Stein is a little bit to the Left of Bernie Sanders. And Sanders is still more moderate than many European heads of state.
And George McGovern wasn't even from Santa Clara County!
And Michael Moore isn't either.
What Drives Trump Supporters?: Sociologist Arlie Russell Hochschild on Anger & Mourning of the Right
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/28/wh…
RandomMember, 538?
And I would be curious to see how this 2016 Vox map compares to how things went in the previous Presidential years, like in which states have switched sides.
SJG
Santa Clara County, like Palo Alto, is still in some ways conservative. But San Jose is more liberal, though not as much so as San Francisco and Oakland. Our LE prosecutes dancers in strip clubs. They would not do that in San Francisco, as they would only prosecute the owners, and that is more difficult.
But because of having a large minority component, and especially on immigration issues, Santa Clara County is quite liberal.
Los Angeles is liberal, but not as much as Santa Clara County.
Riverside / Inland Empire and Orange County are much more conservative. San Diego is more conservative, in part because of the large military presence.
The rural parts of the state tend to be more conservative.
SJG
"George McGovern is my all time favorite presidential candidate." -- no comment
"I found all the Republican primary candidates this time to be excessive, meaning more ridiculous than either McCain or Romney had been." -- Even Kasich? And do you really consider McCain and Romney ridiculously conservative? Wow.
"Corrupt? Hillary Clinton is to the Right of Obama on lots of issues. But corrupt?" -- Hillary used to be somewhat less leftwing than Obama, but it appears that the primary campaign against Sanders drove her permanently leftward on a host of issues, such as free college and a $15 minimum wage. I maintain that she would run a more leftist administration than Obama has -- which, of course, would suit you just fine. As for your questioning her corruption . . . well, I'm just speechless that a sentient human being in November of 2016 could possibly question her corruption! Wow again.
"And Sanders is still more moderate than many European heads of state." -- Name two European heads of state to the left of Bernie Sanders! And even if there are some, is European-style socialism something we should aspire to here? Well, I know you think it is.
"And George McGovern wasn't even from Santa Clara County! And Michael Moore isn't either." -- total non sequiturs. My point about overwhelmingly Democratic presidential voting in Santa Clara County was that it is a highly unrepresentative fragment of America and that living there gives you a distorted view of what Americans really think, as evidenced by the original dumbassery that instigated my post:
"Because with a candidate like Trump I would like to think that he has very few supporters."
This is evidence of a worldview that is totally out of touch with the American mainstream. Trump will probably get 46% or more of the popular vote, around the same level as the Republican candidate in the last four elections -- and he may well be your next President.
Clinton 447
Trump 13
...although Trump did win the endorsement from the KKK official newspaper.
At the risk of pulling a @Steve229, just finished reading official endorsement of Hillary from "The Economist." Economist is sometimes conservative, sometimes liberal, sometimes Libertarian. Hard to characterize. I thought it was a pretty good article and here are few quotes:
"Trump has exploited America’s simmering racial tensions. His experience, temperament and character make him horribly unsuited to being the head of state of the nation that the rest of the democratic world looks to for leadership"
"A Trump government would cut taxes for the richest while imposing trade protection that would raise prices for the poorest. We disagree with him on the environment, immigration, America’s role in the world and other things besides."
"Mrs Clinton is a better candidate than she seems and better suited to cope with the awful, broken state of Washington politics "
" In Britain her ideological home would be the mainstream of the Conservative Party"
"Mrs Clinton is a self-confessed incrementalist. She believes in the power of small changes compounded over time to bring about larger ones. "
Attention dems, this headline just posted on major news outlets.
TOP STORIES
CAROL NONEGRI / Rueters
Obama executive order postpones 2016 Presidential Election till after FBI/IRS/Congressional investigations
"SJG, your penultimate post corroborates my claim that you're a leftwing extremist who is out of touch with the mainstream."
Is being in touch with this "mainstream" an objective of yours? Is that your standard for what is right and what is wrong?
$15min wage and free college ( debt free college ), are those things you object to?
The Right Wing media has done a huge job of demonizing Hillary Clinton, just beyond belief.
The direction France is going, and then Netherlands and Scandanavia are all well to the left of Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein. If we want a sustainable democracy we have very little choice but to follow their lead.
https://www.amazon.com/European-Dream-Eu…
In fact, during the 1960's, the US was going in that direction. What happened was the unveiling of Richard Nixon's Southern Strategy, playing on our country's history of bad race relations, to start driving things to the right, by using coded language. This is still playing out today, or I should say it seems to have peaked, in the Donald Trump campaign.
http://www.democracynow.org/2014/1/14/do…
Deuce wrote, "My point about overwhelmingly Democratic presidential voting in Santa Clara County was that it is a highly unrepresentative fragment of America and that living there gives you a distorted view of what Americans really think, as evidenced by the original dumbassery that instigated my post"
Deuce, again, do you think it desirable to keep one's thinking close to the median?
We all know that various regions have their voting tendencies. We see this in the sorts of people they elect. And then in most places there are big differences between rural and urban voters. We all know this. But you are trying to draw some implication from this, saying that one is wrong if they don't agree with a statistical norm.
One politician from out of my region which I have long admired, besides George McGovern:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birch_Bayh
Deuce wrote:
"
"Because with a candidate like Trump I would like to think that he has very few supporters."
This is evidence of a worldview that is totally out of touch with the American mainstream. Trump will probably get 46% or more of the popular vote, around the same level as the Republican candidate in the last four elections -- and he may well be your next President.
"
Well yes, I would hope that no one votes for Trump. I would expect more from my countrymen and countrywomen.
As far as what actually will happen, none of us know. I cannot even imagine anything worse than Trump actually becoming President. And even if he were only to get like 30%, I would still see that as indicating that this country has a serious problem.
SJG
I believe this was recorded in Hamburg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4T-bL4N…
If you divide the states into Red, Blue, and Battle Ground, then this map does look different from ones I have seen in recent Presidential elections. Usually they show more Red, and much less Blue. So usually it looks like the Republican's have a huge advantage shown in the polls, and then for the Democrats to win they would have to prevail in most all of the Battle Ground states, with little safety margin.
This map looks to be the opposite way.
Now again, none of us know what will actually happen, and because of two things:
1. Extremeness of Trump and his strange appeal
2. Right Wing Media demonizing Clinton
It may be that this election is much harder to predict and so the polls could prove to be less reliable than they previously have been. And then we have this gutting of the 1965 Voting Rights Act being played out for the first time.
Some people face to face have told me that they are voting for Trump, and I've been really surprised. Like one was a homeless man, believing that all problems are caused by immigrants from Mexico. But I also know that Latino voters will be a huge factor this round.
Anyway, I would like to compare this 2016 map to those from previous elections, to see which states have shifted sides, to get the much different starting numbers.
Again, usually the Republican's are shown to have far more states and votes locked in.
SJG
And we all know that these elections tighten, because of all the polling and message focusing.
SJG
Do you know what "non-sequitur" means as the way Mr Deuce has stated already above? For a self proclaimed intelligent individual like you have stated several times in the past, you'd think you'd get a clue, but common sense seems to have passed you by. Good luck on winning any argument with any person of intelligence, because you're going to need a lot of it.
Of course and I know where it originated.
We just need to get democrats out to the polls, and voting for the nominee, instead of for protest candidates.
After Hilary Clinton is elected, just like Michael Moore said, we can work through the Bernie Sander's Organization ( clearly inspired by McGovern Summer 1972 ) and keep progressive pressure on the entire government.
SJG
Markus Reuter @ Glaus Haus by Dutch Rall - 002
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXwoo2Gz…
I felt like being on the "democrat For A Day" show.
But about how Californians vote, an interesting conversation, about a closely related factor, church attendance.
In the 1970's all church attendance tanked.
In the years since, the Roman Catholic Church has gotten a portion of its old levels back, but just a portion.
Mainline Protestantism really has not gotten anything back, far as I can see. And so even with paid up mortgages, most totter on the brink of insolvency.
But what has come back extremely strong, and in my view usually using despicable means, are the new evangelical churches. And as far as I am concerned, their members are nuts.
But I was discussing this with a woman and she told me about her daughter living in the Central Valley, and she says that all kinds of church attendance is very strong there.
I finally got her to specify, Bakersfield, Fresno, and Madera.
Now, the Central Valley is always more conservative than the Bay Area and Los Angeles. It was the vote from that Central Valley which elected Ronald Reagan Governor, twice.
The places she mentioned are all, like most of the cities in that region, on Hwy 99.
Bakersfield is known as a really conservative place. Particularly known for these Oil Field Rough Necks. Some are just people who have opted for a lucrative but very physically demanding type of work. But in there are also some who are just really case hardened and difficult people.
Fresno is interesting because it has long had a reputation for being a tough town, with police that patrol each night with the SWAT team. Kind of a war zone. So I would not expect that, now being one of the state's largest cities, to have that conservative of a vote. Highly Latino too.
But directly adjacent to Fresno is Clovis, where I am told that many of states agribusiness owners live, and extremely conservative.
I think of there being two strip clubs in Fresno, and one right at the airport and directly adjacent to Clovis:
https://www.tuscl.net/postread.php?PID=3…
I know that the CSU remains a center of Latino activism. A year ago I met someone involved in such, who was a counselor for the school.
Then also I've long head about this:
https://www.amazon.com/Slow-Death-Fresno…
SJG
Wow! Just wow on how close this is coming down to the end. Many said Hillary would win in a land slide. Can't wait to see all those celebrities leave the US if Trump wins.
I think Bernie Sanders deserves a medal, for how at the Convention he made sure people knew they should vote for Clinton, and then for his efforts in Colorado today.
http://www.bing.com/search?q=National Presidential Results&p1=%5Beleconv+keys%3D%22result/president/US%22+scn%3D%22results%22%5D&FORM=ELRACE
Now, this is curious, Kansas and Nebraska had been called for Clinton, but now they have shifted to Trump. This is strange. As of now Trump has that entire strip from Dakotas to Texas.
Bing saying Clinton 104, Trump 129, Clinton 89.7% chance of victory.
But Pennsylvania had been very highly Clinton, now only light blue.
Clinton will probably get Colorado and New Mexico, but Trump has Wyoming.
Bing still holding to 89.7% Clinton, but other media going as far as 51% chances for Trump?
This sounds strange, suggestive of the 2000 debacle?
SJG
If you divide the states into Red, Blue, and Battle Ground, then this map does look different from ones I have seen in recent Presidential elections. Usually they show more Red, and much less Blue. So usually it looks like the Republican's have a huge advantage shown in the polls, and then for the Democrats to win they would have to prevail in most all of the Battle Ground states, with little safety margin. -- This is ludicrous. Everyone knows about the Democrats' "Blue Wall", the 18 states with 242 electoral votes that have voted Democrat six elections in a row. Arguably since 1992 it's the Republicans that face an uphill climb to win the presidency.
Usually California is presented as a battle ground state . . . -- Nope, not since 1988.
I am looking forward to a massive democratic landslide, the likes of 1964, 1932, or the 1940 mid-term. -- No comment, except to point out that there was no mid-term election in 1940.
Now, this is curious, Kansas and Nebraska had been called for Clinton, but now they have shifted to Trump. This is strange. -- This is beyond strange. It's fantasy. No one *ever* called KS and NE for Clinton.
Bing saying Clinton 104, Trump 129, Clinton 89.7% chance of victory. -- This post was around 10:30 (ET), when 538.com had Trump's chances at over 50%! More fantasy.
SJG, if I knew as little about politics as you do, I would STFU.
VinceMichael
Rockstar
Dougster
Randommember
twentyfive
Dominic77
and all the rest.
America got it right this time. Republican grand slam.
Lock her up!
Lock her up!
I don't hate dickbreath, he is just another asshole ascending to the throne, I'm waiting for him to find out how little power he has until he tweets the nuclear launch codes to his good buddy, Putin.
I can work around a Trump presidency.
Can she say "Losing"?
:)
:)
Clinton was winning in PA, and had a chance of getting MI and WI. Don't know about FL, NC, and OH. Kansas and Nebraska had been called for her.
I saw on CNN, 82% of the vote went for Clinton in Philadelphia. I think that was the entire county too.
Usually, the longer the vote counting goes on, the more it favors the democrat, because the republican was getting an early boost from the absentee ballots. So as it did not really follow that pattern this time, in some places, suggests some questions.
Clinton should have been able to get all the Obama states, then plus a few more because Trump is such a widely disliked and extreme candidate, and because so many Republican leaders spoke out against him. Need to look close at those Obama states she lost.
So what does this mean, results still not certain in AZ, MI, NH?
http://www.bing.com/search?q=2016+electo…
So the upset states which Trump got were FL, PA, NC, WI, OH.
According to Democracy Now, some pollsters were still saying 99% chance of a Clinton victory.
Don't know what happened. I do know that the often heard negative stuff about Hillary, she being an extremely centrist candidate, is just because people listen to Right Wing Media, and because she is a woman.
Sure, she is not warm and fuzzy. That's just the way she is. That's why she was able to campaign for Barry Goldwater. But she is a great lawyer. She does not have that ebullience which her husband has. But mostly this perception is just because she is a woman and so she relates to power differently. Her husband is an expert in glad handing. She is not like that.
I don't know about this 538.com, or why it's predications differed so much from Bings.
The center did not hold. Democracy requires and informed and rational electorate. We now live in a country where complete idiots have been able to vent their ignorance in polling places and elect their guy as President.
I was actually watching CNN on a public place big screen, with a couple of Trump people standing next to me. They were nuts.
And so much is unknown about Trump, like his foreign finances and business dealings, that there probably are grounds for impeachment right now.
Trump's answer to the suspicious police killings of unarmed African American's was just Stop and Frisk. And he had pledged at the convention that "America will be safe."
Well I believe that things are going to explode. The objective of both non-violent and violent protests is always to provoke the other side.
So expect to see National Guard and regular military used, in defiance of all laws, as occupation forces.
I predict civil war at home, secession of border regions, and extremely dangerous overseas wars, as Trump gets baited and tries to shore up his support, which will last only about 24 hours from his inauguration.
This is the beginning of HELL!
So get yourself a wheelbarrow, in case you want to use C-notes to buy a loaf of bread, and expect forgiveness on all types of debts ( student loan, credit cards, mortgages and T-Bill obligations ) because those banks won't exist anymore and that currency and that government won't exist anymore.
Gold is too heavy to carry around, and too soft to make any kind of weapons out of. Best to get rid of it now. If you are going to die, do it while attacking with a Kalashnikov, not while trying to guard a pile of gold ingots.
Whenever sensible democracy is eventually restored, there will have to be a general amnesty and debt forgiveness.
People have always said that the Mexican border region is like a country of its own. Never seen that directly, but could be. I am sure that now that is where secession will start.
And know, what has just happened in the United States does threaten the political stability of both Canada and Mexico too, as well as in the rest of the world.
Hillary's speech is extremely good, and I know that it will be listened to over and over again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khK9fIgo…
Remember, the problem really is not Donald Trump, he is just one buffoon. The problem is with the White people who voted for him.
1972 Platform, read this, hardly out of date at all. This is what we need right now.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.…
Obama speech, also extremely good.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0SLfCkXD…
I must act, before that wall goes up and before things get any weirder, must have a safety strategy, must become mobile and able to operate across borders.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khK9fIgo…
SJG
SJG
Did you really just say that the problem is with the White people who voted for Trump??
The problem is with the White people who voted for Trump????? Realllyyy?????
Perhaps the problem is with people (like you) thinking that the "problem" can be boiled down to something as simple as "the White people" and how they voted. Perhaps YOUR problem is that your viewpoint is fringe-thinking, at best, and shared by very few.
Sorry, my friend, but right now, one problem is racial intolerance in either direction and the lack of respect for the rule of law. Based on all of your ranting over the past months, perhaps it is time you find another nation in which to reside that is warmer to your quasi-socialist, racist, backward-thinking tripe. Your 15 minutes is over and your ignorance is showing in spite of your obvious intelligence and formal education.
You claim to admire Clinton's and Obama's speeches, but you don't seem able to take their messages to heart. What do you admire, their posture and diction? Listen to their words!
I don't expect you or the rest of the far left to learn anything from this experience or to listen to those of us in the center. For you, it's your way or the highway. You are just as wrong-headed as anybody spouting from the far right. You can't see it and neither can they. The people have spoken (and you're not one of them).
You got that right!
SJG
that's okay. i hear there is an opening for a new director at the FBI. lolol
at least that's what i've heard. lolol
~~~~~~~
SJG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj6pAX7a…
ftfy
Papi +25
SJG
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/navymai…
SJG
Fleetwood Mac, New Orleans
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_SAcWhG2…
SJG
82% for Hillary in Philadelphia
SJG
The center did hold, and voted for Trump (in enough states to win a clear Electoral College majority). I don't like him either, but there's no denying (unless you're a looneytunes leftist) that he is a man of the center.
And no, no one EVER called Kansas and Nebraska for Clinton! Trump won both of them convincingly, something like 60% to 35%. Perhaps you're thinking of Thomas Frank's leftwing screed "What's the Matter with Kansas?", in which his leftie brain tries to figure out why the good citizens of Kansas keep voting Republican even though their economic interests are obviously better served by the Democrats. Hmm . . . I'm guessing it's racism :)
Rule to live by: When in political doubt, do the opposite of what SJG says.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EY0jgDvI…
Thanks for the positive acknowledgements. I remember when I posted this. I was extremely high. So Mary Jane does deserve much of the credit.
This anti-Hillary video, its legitimate. Its not being unfair. Clinton was stupid in this entire email issue.
But the reason the video and the allegations really hurt her, are simply because she is female. Male politicians do stupid things all the time, and they get caught, but it does not seem to stick. With a woman, the other side can play to sterotypes. They were able to whip up a huge amount of personal animosity, and this probably cost her about 80 electoral votes.
I say this also because I have been involved in trying to oust some local candidates, some being women, and my still trying not to cross that line into sexism.
And so no the center did not hold, someone like McCain, Romney, or Hillary Clinton of the DLC, was not elected. Instead a wacko who has never before been elected to anything has won.
Mr. Deuce, you misunderstand me. I would never give up on the US. I simply need to become transnational. Mexico has its own strengths and weaknesses. But I have long planned to be operating there. And I do anticipate things coming unglued in the US, rather like 1968, as a minimum. But maybe much more so.
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/11/10/n…
They have someone in NC who has admitted that they changed laws, "To make it harder for blacks to vote." Even with the gutting of the specific controls arising from the 1965 Voting Rights Act, such actions are still unlawful.
And then the one I find the most strange is PA. Usually when the counting starts the Republican starts out with a huge lead, then it shifts more and more to the Democrat. This time it went exactly the opposite way. Now there are plausible explanaitons, but I would like to hear them.
If it is decided that Trump did not win a majority of the electoral vote, then he cannot be installed as President. That Clinton conceded makes absolutely zero difference. People end their campaigns and then restart them. It is the voters who decide who wins, not the candidates.
Bing did call first Kansas for Clinton, and then after it flipped to Trump, they called Nebraska for Clinton. I was surprised.
This right wing hate media really blossomed in response to white anger over having a black man as President. The influence it has had is beyond measure.
Obama had carried Indiana. Clinton, a candidate to the right of Obama, and running against a buffoon, should have been able to get everything Obama had, plus more.
Thomas Frank is arguing that conservative moderate income voters are voting on the basis of cultural identity issues, and voting against their economic interests. So they vote for a prohibition on abortion and for prayer in schools, but what they get is lowering of high income taxes and increasing college costs.
https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Matter-Kans…
Remember that during this country's years of greatest economic growth, Eisenhower - Kennedy, we had a very strong downward wealth transfer mechanism, top personal income tax rates exceeding 90%.
Like Thom Hartmann explains, in the earliest years of this country, a middle-class was created by the availability of cheap land. But by the late 1800's that was no more, and so you saw our country going the way most every society has, splitting into the very rich and the very poor.
And so in response to what was happening, you had the Granger Movement, and Teddy Roosevelt creating most of the federal regulatory agencies, and being a Trust Buster.
But then that Progressive Wing of the Republican Party died when Roosevelt split the party by running against Taft.
What recreated the middle-class was Franklin Roosevelt with progressive income tax, transferring wealth downwards. And this of course causes a huge economic expansion.
Like Hillary Clinton said, the economy grows from the middle outwards, meaning both up and down. She wanted to restore her husband's extra 2% tax on high incomes.
Actually the economy grows best from the very bottom, like with Food Stamps. Obama did a good job in preventing another Great Depression. The further down the money goes, the faster it recirculates.
But Clintion wants to get elected, and the poor are always looked at as a social menace, show she does not talk about them, she talks about the middle.
Now not everyone goes along with Thomas Frank, like Doug Henwood, and like:
https://www.amazon.com/Reactionary-Mind-…
Most interesting. Where they take exception to Thomas Frank is that they say that these people are voting their "interests", because their interests are cultural and identity based, not economically based. As such, I am inclined to agree with them. But Frank's book is still important because it shows us how these interests work.
Now, I have not read this Arlie Russell Hochschild
http://www.democracynow.org/2016/9/28/wh…
But she was trying to understand this Trump and ultra conservative phenomenon, and so she ended up I think in South West Louisiana, at an evangelical church. Why would a conservative Christian group ever support someone like Trump? Jimmy Carter and his Baptist Church in Plains Georgia would oppose everything about Trump.
So what she found is
1. With this group in Louisiana, their government is run by the petrochemical industry. So while they see this industry as benevolent as it is a major employer, they see the government in only negative terms. So it is alot like the plantation economies the South is known for.
2. And then I add that their religion is based on making professions and on social conformity. That religion exists everywhere in the country. But in the South that is the only kind of religion which has ever been popular. And of course this goes back to slavery.
So they see themselves as a persecuted minority, and then someone like Trump, though different from them, he is still their hero, as they see the government in only negative terms.
So she feels that Clinton should not have said "Basket of Deplorables". Rather, one has to look at the situation these people are living in, the only reality they have ever known.
See most of the rest of us see the greatest of America and all hopes and dreams as coming from the Civil Rights Movement, the Anti-War Movement, and the Women's Movement. These were the defining times for people like myself, and like Bill and Hillary Clinton.
But for these evangelical conservative Trump supporters, that kind of stuff passed them by. So though we may disagree with them and see their voting patters as problematic, we should not hold this against them personally.
SJG
Go to Canada - but understand that they have single payer health insurance run by the government and it usually takes one to three years of waiting for approval of many medical services - and be careful, Canada DEPORTS illegal aliens.
Or you can go to Mexico - but avoid the 70% of Mexico that is controlled by violent drug gangs, and be very careful about your paperwork - Mexico puts illegal aliens in wretched prisons for months before DEPORTING them. If you choose any of the immigrant friendly nations of Europe, please avoid public places where Islamic Terrorists murder people and be prepared for tax rates over 50%.
Enjoy yourselves and write us a note occasionally.
SJG
SJG
SJG
As far as all the entitled kids who aren't getting free college, free tuition, free this, free that, and are protesting a fair election, welcome to how republicans view things. Go to college to get a job and pay taxes to help pay for schools and colleges you already went to.
That people would stay home when they could vote to stop Trump was a huge mistake.
SJG
That is 100% correct.
Both candidates were terrible, America wouldn't have won regardless. I do find it completely comical that he's gonna try to bring America together. For as long as I've known about Trump, he's always been about bringing attention to himself, he's right up there with the Kardashians as far as attention whores. He's gonna get all the attention he wants now.
But Hillary Clinton is an extremely centrist candidate with a most reasonable set of plans. Warm and fuzzy, no she is not. Innocent of the effects of political power, no.
But I still feel that most of the criticism of her is unfair, and orchestrated by this Right Wing Hate Media, which fully blossomed during Obama's terms. The anti-Hillary message is just evoking stereotypes about women ambitious for power.
Larry, if you or others have specific claims to refute this interpretation, I am willing to listen.
Is their any talk about challenging the vote counts in any states? I couldn't watch that much Tuesday night, but the one which looks the most curious, is Pennsylvania. Almost always, the Democrat gains as the counting continues, whereas the Republican starts out with a huge advantage from the absentee votes and then the rural counties. This time Pennsylvania did exactly the opposite. There I plausible explanations, but I have yet to hear them.
SJG
Here's another plausible explanation: Clinton voters tend to vote earlier in the day because they're less likely to have jobs. Trump voters tended to vote later in the day because they had to go to work first :)
:)
About when people voted, I don't think that could apply as I am not aware that there is any counting until the polls close.
Papi, I have fully immersive f2f public responsibilities, with zero private life, except perhaps for online. So travels will have to wait.
But certainly after this horrible election outcome, my plans for becoming transnational have intensified.
Not really interested in a strip club tour, or sex tourism, rather it is all about my own businesses. Strippers are just an easy way to connect with local people and develop local contacts.
SJG
SJG
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/m…
This guy could blow up the White House, because he wants to live in Trump Tower, and then declare Marshal Law and suspend the Constitution.
And those at the bottom need to be ready to stand up for themselves using Any Means Necessary, and not be subjected to the bogus sciences of Social Darwinism and Eugenics.
I have my own ongoing commitments and obligations. But this is still a time to speed up my preparations for going transnational.
https://yy2.staticflickr.com/7403/961969…
SJG
We could ask those most qualified, the 8 sitting justices of the Supreme Court, to write the amendment.
Sometimes it is strange crises which force progress. Bring the United States forward out of the 19th Century.
Otherwise with this claim of weekly contact with Russians and the FBI announcements, it's "What did Trump know and when did he know it?" As it will be necessary to impeach him and require the same congressional 2/3rds.
Obama missed his FDR moment when he failed to nationalize or even re-regulate the banks. Well now on his way out he can have an even greater moment by finally fixing our system so that every vote counts, and averting a disaster of epic proportions.
Governing the most powerful nation in the world is nothing like a sporting match, as the stakes are so much higher. We all need therefore to think very hard about what is needed, and then do it.
SJG
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtGxusvU…
SJG
SJG
Eur-lex.europa.eu eur-lex.europa.eu