Too Soon To Start Thinking About 2016?

[Defiant]

The hostility between Trump and Clinton supporters has been escalating as election day nears. But Tuesday someone attached razor blades to a Trump-Pence sign, then used it to cover the official polling site sign at a polling location in Plano.

Just before sunrise at Collin County College a precinct official ordered the sign removed, and a volunteer who was taking it down cut their hands on the box cutter blades that were attached to the bottom of the sign.

What the fuck is wrong with people?

Can't we just go back to worrying about razor blades in Halloween candy?

[gilraen]

David Frum's The Conservative Case for Voting for Clinton

Yes, I fear Clinton’s grudge-holding. Should I fear it so much that I rally to a candidate who has already explicitly promised to deploy antitrust and libel law against his critics and opponents? Who incited violence at his rallies? Who ejects reporters from his events if he objects to their coverage? Who told a huge audience in Australia that his top life advice was: "Get even with people. If they screw you, screw them back 10 times as hard. I really believe it”? Who idealizes Vladimir Putin, Saddam Hussein, and the butchers of Tiananmen as strong leaders to be admired and emulated?

Should I be so appalled by the Clinton family’s access-selling that I prefer instead a president who boasts of a lifetime of bribing politicians to further his business career? Who defaults on debts and contracts as an ordinary business method, and who avoids taxes by deducting the losses he inflicted on others as if he had suffered them himself? Who cheated the illegal laborers he employed at Trump Tower out of their humble hourly wage? Who owes hundreds of millions of dollars to the Bank of China? Who refuses to disclose his tax returns, perhaps to conceal his business dealings with Vladimir Putin’s inner circle?
[...]
To vote for Trump as a protest against Clinton’s faults would be like amputating a leg because of a sliver in the toe; cutting one’s throat to lower one’s blood pressure. [...]We don’t have to analogize Donald Trump to any of the lurid tyrants of world history to recognize in him the most anti-constitutional personality ever to gain a major-party nomination for the U.S. presidency.

[El Guapo]

Between the FBI leaks, Wikileaks, the Republican Congress, voter suppression, and a media overwhemlingly focused on e-mail scandals, I am coming around to the expectation that Trump is a slight favorite to win the election.

Is this some sort of preemptive, self-protective defense mechanism on your part just in case the unimaginable happens? Because right now it kind of flies in the face of the available empirical evidence. She's leading in the polls, and though they do seem to have tightened slightly, she has so many more paths to a victory in the electoral college than Trump, and polling has her ahead in the states that she needs for 270 with room to spare. RIght now, most aggregators have her at 270+ before getting to toss-ups. Plus, other factors favor her: her GOTV effort, historical under-polling of Dem-leaners (particularly Latinos), her cash advantage in the remaining days, etc... these all lead to her still being the strong favorite.

I guess these indicators could be off, and things can still change (though the race really has been pretty stable), so it's not an absolute slam-dunk, but I'm still feeling pretty confident. It is disappointing that the margin will likely be smaller than I would have hoped or expected, and this might have down-ballot consequences, but I'm not gonna lie-- I will breathe a huge sigh of relief a week from today if I finally know definitively that Trump won't be president regardless of the outcome the down-ballot races.

Maybe I'm being too pessimistic in light of the dangers involved, I don't know. If the election were being held today I would be nervous but semi-confident. It's just that when Trump pulled essentially even with Clinton leading up to the first debate, it was under similar circumstances - the media going nuts about trivial BS Clinton "cast shadow" semi-scandals, like even her getting freaking sick. This is worse - you still have the media credulously reporting any quasi-scandal without substance, but now you have Wikileaks doing its drip-drip releases and the FBI (or some significant faction therein) essentially openly siding with Trump and openly smearing Clinton through friendly press.

Given that, unless something changes, I find it hard to believe that Trump won't be essentially at parity with Clinton in the polls (maybe even slightly better) by Tuesday. I am comforted somewhat by the early voting in NV and NC, and Clinton's better GOTV...but this is fucking dangerous. Trump has a very real chance at winning, especially when you factor in voter suppression efforts underway, and the fact that most of the swing-states are GOP-run.

I will say, though, that I did training this evening for poll monitoring for the Clinton campaign this evening, and I was impressed with the organization (and number of volunteers) I saw. If there are significant shenanigans in NH on Tuesday, the Clinton campaign is definitely going to know about it.

[YellowKing]

Well if it makes you feel any better, Nate Silver said a few days ago that Trump had a better chance of winning the Presidency than the Cubs had of coming back three games down to win the World Series.

Oh....wait.....

[malchior]

I hate to say it if it isn't Drumpf - we will likely have a strongman making a very strong play in 4 years - maybe even Drumpf again. The path is clear now. And I can't imagine 4 years from now that it will not have been 4 years of endless investigations into everything she does or ever did. It's going to be ugly. America as we know it has been an unstable mess for far too long - it isn't going to take much to push it over.

[raydude]

I hate to say it if it isn't Drumpf - we will likely have a strongman making a very strong play in 4 years - maybe even Drumpf again. The path is clear now. And I can't imagine 4 years from now that it will not have been 4 years of endless investigations into everything she does or ever did. It's going to be ugly. America as we know it has been an unstable mess for far too long - it isn't going to take much to push it over.

If its any consolation aren't the pro-Trump demographics as percentage of the population getting smaller every election? Hopefully in 4 years the growth in minority populations and decrease in angry white men will combine to present Trump, or someone similar, with even less of a chance of winning than he has now.

[Blackhawk]

You've just explained the wall.

[malchior]

I don't think improving demographics are going to make enough difference in 4 years. The GOP is going to be pursuing open political warfare in the House come January. It is not unlikely that we will see trumped up impeachment charges of some sort in her first *and probably only* term. The situation will most likely be obstruction akin to the last 6 years plus an enraged political right that will only inflame the current situation. Obama dealt with a fairly hostile Congress for 6 years. She will have a Congress with one chamber *at least* openly at war with her. It will not be pretty.

Also I think she probably won't cross 50% support and she will have massive unfavorable numbers off the bat so that'll be pointed at as proof she doesn't have a mandate. Expect all kinds of shenanigans designed to make sure that nothing gets done. And the Republicans will be at war with themselves as well which will only add to the chaos. Unless a miracle happens and the House and Senate falls...there is no path to governance. Even if it does - one party rule only will make the situation worse for the mid-terms. It is a matter of systemic risk IMO. Systemic risk of a failure has been relatively high since at least 2000 but you can probably chart it back to the Contract with America. Since then it has been ratcheting up. And the risk of complete political failure is boiling hot now.

What we need is a way to deescalate and that would be compromise/discussion; but that isn't possible. The GOP base lives in a parallel reality. The Dems in some respects have built their own reality as well but not nearly as cohesive - plus it is closer to the real world. But in any case - they are unable to compromise. It isn't a difference of opinion. It is very much like dealing with a crazy person. You can't fix broken world view. You simply aren't seeing the same thing. You can see it in the obviously deranged opinions you see from the alt-right and people on this very board. You point out straightforward logical inconsistencies in their position and they just ignore it or respond in some way that deflects it in a very non-sane, non-logical way. They aren't listening. They don't believe you. You might as well be a sworn enemy. There is no compromise possible. So systemic risk for failure will just continue to get worse. It is pretty much a straight forward equation IMO.

[PLW]

I contacted every friend and family member who lives in a swing state. I have never even considered doing something like that before. I can't believe I care so much about politics. I don't like it.

[RunningMn9]

I contacted every friend and family member who lives in a swing state. I have never even considered doing something like that before. I can't believe I care so much about politics. I don't like it.

This is no longer about politics. That's why you care.

[Defiant]

I contacted every friend and family member who lives in a swing state. I have never even considered doing something like that before. I can't believe I care so much about politics. I don't like it.

Better to care now than care a week from now.

[Zarathud]

My kids are terrified by Trump's demeanor. There's a good reason why children would vote in a landslide for Clinton (52%) over Trump (35%). He's an untrustworthy bully, and they've seen it on the playgrounds.

[YellowKing]

It's frustrating to me because in a lot of past elections, it didn't really matter who won either way. Not for me and mine, at least. I may be looking at a tax bump here or a tax credit there, but ultimately, my life wasn't going to shift significantly at all.

This time around, I've got friends who will be directly impacted. I've had friends lose good jobs because of McCrory's gutting of the film industry. I've got friends who, after just getting a victory with legalized gay marriage, will now have their progress thrown back by decades if McCrory or Pence get in office. I've got friends in the military who, if Trump's aggressive rhetoric is to be believed, will soon be back overseas risking their lives because of his mouth and incompetence.

It's definitely tough to then hear people on the Trump side not only cheering on those developments, but absolutely gloating about it. Combined with their insane gun control stances, it's like there is no humanity left in them. They've embraced everything that is violent, cruel, racist, misogynistic, and not only do they have no regrets, they revel in it.

No political party is worth giving up common human decency. I don't care what the policy stances are.

[El Guapo]

My kids are terrified by Trump's demeanor. There's a good reason why children would vote in a landslide for Clinton (52%) over Trump (35%). He's an untrustworthy bully, and they've seen it on the playgrounds.

My daughter talks about Trump like he's a literal monster. "Is he ever going to come to Boston???" Well, yes probably at some point, but that's not what's dangerous about him.

[Rip]

It's frustrating to me because in a lot of past elections, it didn't really matter who won either way. Not for me and mine, at least. I may be looking at a tax bump here or a tax credit there, but ultimately, my life wasn't going to shift significantly at all.

This time around, I've got friends who will be directly impacted. I've had friends lose good jobs because of McCrory's gutting of the film industry. I've got friends who, after just getting a victory with legalized gay marriage, will now have their progress thrown back by decades if McCrory or Pence get in office. I've got friends in the military who, if Trump's aggressive rhetoric is to be believed, will soon be back overseas risking their lives because of his mouth and incompetence.

It's definitely tough to then hear people on the Trump side not only cheering on those developments, but absolutely gloating about it. Combined with their insane gun control stances, it's like there is no humanity left in them. They've embraced everything that is violent, cruel, racist, misogynistic, and not only do they have no regrets, they revel in it.

No political party is worth giving up common human decency. I don't care what the policy stances are.

Yet military people vote for Trump in huge margins over Hillary. So I guess you are saying most of the people in the military would rather be risking their lives than not? Or maybe, just maybe the people whose lives are at stake have more faith in Trump looking out for their interests than Hillary? Why don't we ask some of the guys who tried in vain to save the Ambassador and his people?

If American military personnel alone were selecting the next president, the contest would be a dead heat between Republican nominee Donald Trump and Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson, according to an exclusive new survey by Military Times and Syracuse University's Institute for Veterans and Military Families.

Conducted in September, it is the first scientific breakdown of voting preferences among service members, and includes more than 2,200 responses from active-duty troops. And it shows a very different race than the one playing out on the broader national stage.

Among the entire military force, Trump leads Johnson 37.6 percent to 36.5 percent, within the study’s 2 percent margin of error. Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton trails as a distant third-place choice, with only 16.3 percent of troops' support.

Green Party candidate Jill Stein received 1.2 percent support while other third-party and write-in options received 3.2 percent.

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/t ... -president

Nice of you to look at for the people in uniform by telling them they don't know what is best for themselves.

[Isgrimnur]

Putting on the uniform doesn't make someone that much more knowledgeable about politics.

[Rip]

Putting on the uniform doesn't make someone that much more knowledgeable about politics.

So would you like to put a politics test on the Register to Vote requirements? A massive chunk of Hillary voters wouldn't even be able to name the branches of government or who is in the cabinet. Heck a portion don't even speak English, so that mentality works both directions.

[Defiant]

A massive chunk of Hillary voters wouldn't even be able to name the branches of government or who is in the cabinet.

Neither would Trump voters. Or, for that matter, Trump.

[Isgrimnur]

Putting on the uniform doesn't make someone that much more knowledgeable about politics.

So would you like to put a politics test on the Register to Vote requirements? A massive chunk of Hillary voters wouldn't even be able to name the branches of government or who is in the cabinet. Heck a portion don't even speak English, so that mentality works both directions.

I'm all for a benevolent dictator. Find me one, and I'll man the barricades.

I oppose motivating uninformed voters from being pushed, prodded, and driven to the polls. I oppose people in nursing homes being 'helped' to fill out their ballots by staff. I want voters to be informed and make decisions based on facts and reason rather than motivated by fear.

I also want a pony and storms to rain down Thin Mints. Both sets are equally likely.

[stessier]

Regal Cinema's is showing Air Force One on election night. I think they missed the boat - should have shown The American President or Dave.

[LordMortis]

Some of the exchanges between MJF and MD really ring true this cycle. Makes me want to go back and rewatch American President.

[Chaz]

The military polling for Trump isn't super surprising. The military directly benefits from increased defense spending, and Trump is calling for big increases there. If their assumption is that they're going to be sent into harm's way no matter which candidate wins, wouldn't they want to support the guy who says he'll give them way more money to spend on bigger and better equipment? Never mind that the nuanced answer is that only one of the candidates has expressed a very cavalier attitude about getting the US involved in international conflict, so is more likely to get us involved in multiple conflicts that are potentially much riskier.

[malchior]

Trump's support in the military is also a function of straight demographics - military recruits tend to come from poorer red counties especially in the south/south east United States.

[Smutly]

Putting on the uniform doesn't make someone that much more knowledgeable about politics.

So would you like to put a politics test on the Register to Vote requirements? A massive chunk of Hillary voters wouldn't even be able to name the branches of government or who is in the cabinet. Heck a portion don't even speak English, so that mentality works both directions.

I'm all for a benevolent dictator. Find me one, and I'll man the barricades.

I've always said that I would make a hell of a benevolent dictator.

[Rip]

The military polling for Trump isn't super surprising. The military directly benefits from increased defense spending, and Trump is calling for big increases there. If their assumption is that they're going to be sent into harm's way no matter which candidate wins, wouldn't they want to support the guy who says he'll give them way more money to spend on bigger and better equipment? Never mind that the nuanced answer is that only one of the candidates has expressed a very cavalier attitude about getting the US involved in international conflict, so is more likely to get us involved in multiple conflicts that are potentially much riskier.

The rank and file military which is the vast majority of them don't give a crap about that. The likelihood it has any effect on their paycheck is nil. They always have and always will be among the most poorly compensated people in the country.

They really aren't thrilled about either one in terms of nationals security. Also note that Hillary does much better among officers versus enlisted. Most of the enlisted guys won't be there by the time any spending increase hits the pavement anyway. Officers would benefit the most for that.

Only 18 percent rated Clinton’s ability to handle national security as good or very good, and only 27 percent rated Trump’s ability the same way.

Nick Armstrong, the Institute for Veterans and Military Families' senior director for research and policy, said the results show a substantial amount of diversity and independence among military voters, despite a stereotype of them being reliable Republican backers.

“You can’t treat this group as a monolith,” Armstrong said. “The military itself is a very diverse institution, so we’d expect the variety of political viewpoints to follow that.”

“We're all doomed to have a president that the majority of the nation disapproves of, one way or another,” said one Army sergeant.

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/t ... -president

Heck Johnson nearly tied Trump which I read as mostly protest vote. Since Jill Stein isn't really an option as she would be a nightmare for them. I mean think about it they would be just as happy with a guy who didn't know where Aleppo was to one of the alternatives. This is a stark anti-republican shift from the military but still not nearly enough to actually want Hillary to win, not in their worst nightmares.

[Chaz]

Who said paycheck? I specifically said better equipment.

[NickAragua]

Putting on the uniform doesn't make someone that much more knowledgeable about politics.

So would you like to put a politics test on the Register to Vote requirements? A massive chunk of Hillary voters wouldn't even be able to name the branches of government or who is in the cabinet. Heck a portion don't even speak English, so that mentality works both directions.

As a naturalized citizen, I found the US citizenship test to be a complete joke in terms of difficulty of questions. "How many branches of government are there?", "Who is the current president?" and that sort of thing. Only three questions get asked. And that's the bar for naturalized immigrants. I find it completely incomprehensible that natural born citizens aren't subjected to even that level of competence check. I'm not saying a person needs to be able to have an in-depth discussion on the merits and drawbacks of current economic policy, but at least make sure they're not a drooling retard. I fully realize it's a double edged sword, but a person casting a vote in ignorance (along strictly party lines or based on "gut reaction") isn't doing anybody any favors.

Also, I kind of liked the voting rules in Starship Troopers. "You'd be surprised how often experimental equipment fails to work."

[ImLawBoy]

but at least make sure they're not a drooling retard.

We actually had surgery to remove some of the saliva glands on my son so he doesn't drool so much, but thanks so much for using an image that Trump would be proud of.

[NickAragua]

but at least make sure they're not a drooling retard.

We actually had surgery to remove some of the saliva glands on my son so he doesn't drool so much, but thanks so much for using an image that Trump would be proud of.

What I really meant was "person unfit to vote because of lack of basic civic awareness", but that's a lot to type out and I'm lazy. My apologies for causing personal offense.

[Zarathud]

I've always said that I would make a hell of a benevolent dictator.

There you go again, posting crazy shit.

Hell no.

[LordMortis]

If it's of any consequence, I know I'd be a terrible benevolent dictator and I avoid the accumulation of power whenever possible. I can often ruminate over the fact that it's a good thing I'm not the PiC.

[NickAragua]

If it's of any consequence, I know I'd be a terrible benevolent dictator and I avoid the accumulation of power whenever possible. I can often ruminate over the fact that it's a good thing I'm not the PiC.

I'm sure I'd start out well intentioned, but "power corrupts", etc. Without some kind of balance on my power, I'd be having people thrown into power plant furnaces in no time.

[Isgrimnur]

If it's of any consequence, I know I'd be a terrible benevolent dictator and I avoid the accumulation of power whenever possible. I can often ruminate over the fact that it's a good thing I'm not the PiC.

I'm sure I'd start out well intentioned, but "power corrupts", etc. Without some kind of balance on my power, I'd be having people thrown into power plant furnaces in no time.

They go from a constant stream of carbon emissions to a one-time hit.

[NickAragua]

If it's of any consequence, I know I'd be a terrible benevolent dictator and I avoid the accumulation of power whenever possible. I can often ruminate over the fact that it's a good thing I'm not the PiC.

I'm sure I'd start out well intentioned, but "power corrupts", etc. Without some kind of balance on my power, I'd be having people thrown into power plant furnaces in no time.

They go from a constant stream of carbon emissions to a one-time hit.

Now that's what I call cap and trade.

[Fitzy]

I've always said that I would make a hell of a benevolent dictator.

My Tropicans are happier and live better lives than yours.

[Isgrimnur]

Voter suppression

First things first: There is no such thing as voting by text message. Period. If you want to cast a ballot, you can vote at your polling station or vote absentee. That’s it.

But ads circulated on Twitter recently would have you believe otherwise.

Lifting imagery directly from Hillary Clinton’s campaign materials, the ads encourage supporters of the Democratic nominee to “vote early” and “vote from home” by texting their candidate’s name to a five-digit number.
...
At least four such ads began making rounds on social media this week, each containing the Clinton campaign’s “H” logo and a line saying they were “paid for by Hillary for President.” Some featured images of Clinton that appear to be pulled from actual campaign marketing materials, while others showed a black woman and a Hispanic woman, in what may be an attempt to dupe to minority voters. One was written entirely in Spanish.
...
The ads seemed to gain traction after Twitter user @TheRickyVaughn tweeted them out along with the pro-Clinton hashtag #ImWithHer. The user, who had roughly 11,000 followers before his account was suspended, has previously tweeted conspiracy theories and racial and homophobic slurs, and regularly linked to polls favorable to Republican nominee Donald Trump.

[Rip]

Buridan's Ass Paradox suggests to me that there will be low Democrat turnout. Hopefully none of them starve.

[Rip]

Clinton's NC rally attracts 1500 people.



Trump can only muster a little over 17000.



Oh and he promised more military spending to provide real jobs not a few more thousand jobs dumping bedpans or serving fries. My words not his.

I can totally see NC going to Trump.

[Chaz]

So he's all for shrinking government, except that most of the jobs he wants to create will be working for the military, but he also doesn't want to put boots on the ground to defeat ISIS because he's going to make our allies do it, and also wants to have to spend less providing military support for our allies by making them start paying more for their defense. So basically, everyone works for a military force that's not being used and is way bigger than it needs to be? Sounds good to me!

[Carpet_pissr]

Actually a good tactic...we are obsessed by the military and anyone that dons a uniform is an insta-God, especially in or near areas that have large bases.

Hell, just say the word 'military' and many people's eyes just glaze over in obeisance while they nod their heads.

Anyone that dares to question that mentality or spending is seen as unpatriotic.