Elections Clinton vs Trump Polls thread (Clinton's Bounce Larger than Trump's)

[Anung Un Rama]

Would you say Trump has truly won any of the debates? Most of the talk about him performing well in debates were when they were just hoping he wouldn't say anything else to tank his lead. I don't think he can skate by during these debates the way he did in the primary with him being behind on the polls and without that rabid fan base to win over. The people that will be duped by Trump are already firmly in his camp and his shtick isn't going to win him over mainstream Americans. I'm expecting Trumps poll numbers to take a hit after each debate and look forward to all the palinesque flubs that are on the way.

I honestly didn't watch much of the GOP debates. I think I watched 1.5 debates and then just checked out the highlights (which was probably too much for any 1 man to see in a lifetime). There wasn't any sophistication coming from that lineup; it was the equivalent of a DNC debate stage full of Lincoln Chaffees. All Drumpf needed to do was neg and alpha his way into the tiny minds of the GOP voters. I agree he cannot get away with that vs. Clinton, especially in a series of one-on-one debates. He's within the margin of error so I don't think that is a factor going into the debates. He could absolutely fall flat on his face, but I could see him taking Clinton's numbers down with him if not "win" outright.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I think he probably has a company or 2 whilst campaigning to run and ad-libbed his entire campaign up to this point, which is easier to do when you're running in a pack.
Now he would have the spotlight for a series of 1 on 1 debates and he wouldn't be able to get away with that. I'd imagine he'd study up this time.

Sure, that's what you or I might do. Sounds sensible.
What about his behavior, even just since becoming the "presumptive nominee" makes you think "sensible" applies? What about his answers (lol) to questions on policy makes you think he's any more knowledgeable now than then?

 

[UpaLoompa]

There wasn't any sophistication coming from that lineup; it was the equivalent of a DNC debate stage full of Lincoln Chaffees.

Ha!

 

[Anung Un Rama]

Sure, that's what you or I might do. Sounds sensible.
What about his behavior, even just since becoming the "presumptive nominee" makes you think "sensible" applies? What about his answers (lol) to questions on policy makes you think he's any more knowledgeable now than then?

I don't think his answers were ever based on knowledge as much as out peacocking against the field. Neg the field, expose their hypocrisies when you can, appeal to popular fears and frustrations, blurt out popular mythology with a little bit of fact mixed in, but not too much because that would leave him open to objective critique. I think his behavior, which was a bizarre asset in the primaries will have to be toned down in the upcoming debates, which could, paradoxically enough, hurt him. All the more important that he boned up on the issues so he can balance it out. He really only needs to know facts to avoid "gotcha questions" and have a more tangible grasp on his proposed policies. Its not like he needs to show competency in this area; the voters aren't grading his thesis, they're grading his appeal - which he can enhance by simply contrasting himself to Clinton and her real and not so real weaknesses.

edit: he does have some built in assets; being a rich business man makes him seem, successful, intelligent, worldly, tough, and above being bought. In spite of what the WR elite believe, relative to the general population, these are all objectively true.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I don't think his answers were ever based on knowledge as much as out peacocking against the field.

As I said, since he became the presumptive nominee.

 

[SouthoftheAndes]

I assume that you think every revolutionary throughout history (that didn't win) was scum, given that that is the disposition of simpletons.

Trotsky was a great man. I was just to his home in Mexico last month.
.

His tactics aren't why I dislike him, I consider his tactics to be understandable. It's his ideology and what he stood for that I dislike. Trotsky was also a liar but millions of fools to this day still believe in the lies that Trotsky told (which he personally disn't believe in). The man was power hungry among other things.

 

[Chris Kyle is a liar]

Im glad people are finally moving past that stupid email shit and getting to the polices. Which trump is so weak and that will cost his dumbass the election.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

As I said, since he became the presumptive nominee.

Oh, gotcha. Nothing about this guy seems sensible, but it got him this far. If he checked his craziness and didn't go after that judge he might still have a lead in the polls. There is definitely room for gaffs and controversies in any race, this one is a minefield for both candidates - probably why Clinton has been so media silent lately. We'll see. If he didn't bone up on policy he may finally faceplant.

 

[Trotsky]

His tactics aren't why I dislike him, I consider his tactics to be understandable. It's his ideology and what he stood for that I dislike. Trotsky was also a liar but millions of fools to this day still believe in the lies that Trotsky told (which he personally disn't believe in). The man was power hungry among other things.

Please explain. I don't care for generalities.

 

[TheComebackKid]

Sure, that's what you or I might do. Sounds sensible.
What about his behavior, even just since becoming the "presumptive nominee" makes you think "sensible" applies? What about his answers (lol) to questions on policy makes you think he's any more knowledgeable now than then?

Question: What can we do about the constant flow of illegal immigrants into the united states?

Non-Sensible Answer: Offer them safe haven. Never deport them. Give them assistance of all kinds, drivers license, and the right to vote. Accommodate their language and culture to the best of our ability.

Sensible Answer: Build a wall

Question: What can we do to protect ourselves from the constant flow of islamic terrorism happening all over the world?

Non-Sensible Answer: Show them that we love them by bringing in as many muslims as possible with very little vetting. Then go overseas and blow up and destablize entire countires.

Sensible Answer: Don't let muslims in the country for awhile

 

[Trotsky]

You just make yourself sound petty when you say stuff like this.

lol, seriously?

I spend my time explaining things and you repeatedly just say "well you're just influenced by right-wing propaganda". Or, you make a baseless claim that I'm copying criticisms from other sites and then fold and run when I call you out to either address the claims or find where I had supposedly copied them from.

I don't care to spend time pettily discussing partisan politics with a person who, despite supporting a person internationally regarded as, if anything, just right of center, attempts to dismiss criticisms of his partisan dogma by claiming that all of it must come from the far-right. Who cares that every leftist community, even European ones, despise Clinton as a murderous and corporate neoliberal? They're all just a bunch of Republicans, yeah?

I understand that you're used to deluding yourself into believing you're progressive and all-knowing by arguing with moronic rightists on this site and insulating yourself from the reality of political thought beyond American partisanship, but, frankly, I don't care to entertain your gripes if you're so dead set on dragging them back into that realm of discourse.


Anyways, here's a recent critcism of persons like you:

WHAT THESE writers are doing is taking disgust at Clinton's conservatism and twisting it. They present principled opposition to oppression and inequality as privileged self-indulgence.

But in the face of so many outrages--from legal decisions that blame rape survivors for the actions of their assailants or that further empower already out-of-control police, to the unending destruction of the environment--principled opposition to injustice is something that we need more of, not less.

But the scolders in the service of Hillary Clinton are prepared to demean the awareness raised, for example, by the Ferguson and Baltimore uprisings by trying to harness it for a candidate whose support for the criminalization of African American youth is clear.

These writers are also disregarding what seems to be a greater willingness among progressives and leftists--Black activists in particular--to defy the logic that we have to accept the "lesser evil" to fight the greater evil.

Are they calling Samaria Rice--the mother of Tamir Rice, murdered by the Cleveland police, who has seen nothing but betrayal from politicians--"privileged" for her refusal to endorse a presidential candidate? Similarly, Michelle Alexander, author of the The New Jim Crow, is hardly speaking from a position of blinding self-involvement when she identifies the Clintons as central architects of mass incarceration and calls for a political alternative.

Those who try to shame us into voting for Clinton avoid the substance of criticism so as to avoid acknowledging her long record of political crimes. Adding to those already mentioned, consider Clinton's call for the detention and deportation of child migrants from Central America in 2014.

Or her personal role in defending and promoting the 2009 coup in Honduras. The coup continues to have catastrophic repercussions in Honduras, including the recent assassination of human rights activist Berta Caceras. Yet Clinton takes pride in her role in in her memoir Tough Choices.

These opinion articles and blog statements that attempt to shame us into supporting a politician we oppose share other features in common. They accept the all-or-nothing, narrow logic of the U.S. elections--the idea that if you aren't actively supporting a Democrat's bid for office, then you're assisting a Republican's victory.

https://socialistworker.org/2016/06/30/wont-be-shamed-into-voting-for-clinton

 

[UpaLoompa]

Sensible Answer: Build a wall
Sensible Answer: Don't let muslims in the country for awhile

What's funny is how much editing you have to do to make those answers sensible. You remove blanket labeling of mexicans as rapists and criminals. You remove idiocy about "making mexico pay". You remove horrific statements about torturing and executing the families of muslims. Etc. etc. etc.

 

[TheComebackKid]

What's funny is how much editing you have to do to make those answers sensible. You remove blanket labeling of mexicans as rapists and criminals. You remove idiocy about "making mexico pay". You remove horrific statements about torturing and executing the families of muslims. Etc. etc. etc.

I didn't edit anything like that

 

[Jack V Savage]

lol, seriously?

Yeah, seriously. You don't want to admit I'm right, fine. But to claim that I'm unintelligent because I don't agree with you makes you look small, and like you can't demonstrate any respect to people on the other side of any issue. Like someone who doesn't like Jones trying to deny that he was really the best LHW.

Anyways, here's a recent critcism of persons like you:
https://socialistworker.org/2016/06/30/wont-be-shamed-into-voting-for-clinton

This doesn't apply to me.

 

[Trotsky]

Yeah, seriously. You don't want to admit I'm right, fine. But to claim that I'm unintelligent because I don't agree with you makes you look small, and like you can't demonstrate any respect to people on the other side of any issue. Like someone who doesn't like Jones trying to deny that he was really the best LHW.

I have been more than accommodating despite you acting petulant and immature. If you are not going to respond to others' points and instead recycle the same ad hominem and attempt to undermine them as pawns in the simple and narrow partisan bickering war here (lol), you aren't going to be treated with respect. Accordingly, I no longer treat you with the respect that I give to posters with whom I agree on far less than you.

This doesn't apply to me.

It does. You're attempting to force others to vote within the two-party framework, even when there is a candidate in the national spotlight that presents a platform more similar to theirs, by ignoring Clinton's flaws and inflating the threat of Republican opposition.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I have been more than accommodating despite you acting petulant and immature.

But you say that only because I have dared to disagree with you, right? Like I said, lashing out and saying I'm unintelligent is like a Warriors hater saying that Curry is a shitty shooter. Like, you can hate the Warriors, but you look small when you say stuff like that.

It does. You're attempting to force others to vote within the two-party framework, even when there is a candidate in the national spotlight that presents a platform more similar to theirs, by ignoring Clinton's flaws and inflating the threat of Republican opposition.

Now we're moving back on topic. Like I said, if you think that Bernie had good ideas, you want Clinton to win. Because that's the way to actually get policy that Bernie would agree with. Bernie himself has made this point. If you just supported Bernie because you thought it was "cool" and you're privileged enough and lacking enough in empathy that policy doesn't really matter to you, then you can support Stein.

 

[Trotsky]

But you say that only because I have dared to disagree with you, right? Like I said, lashing out and saying I'm unintelligent is like a Warriors hater saying that Curry is a shitty shooter. Like, you can hate the Warriors, but you look small when you say stuff like that.

What?

No, you can disagree with the facts that Clinton is a sleazy and corrupt war profiteer and you can certainly disagree with my refusal to vote for her. To, however, qualify your disagreement on the repeated farce that I'm a "right-wing propaganda" slave shows the level of discourse of which you are capable. And it's not great.

I don't care if you disagree with me: that's what political forums are for. But, even if someone agrees with me but does so on the false premise of conservative likeness, I will object.

Now we're moving back on topic. Like I said, if you think that Bernie had good ideas, you want Clinton to win. Because that's the way to actually get policy that Bernie would agree with. Bernie himself has made this point. If you just supported Bernie because you thought it was "cool" and you're privileged enough and lacking enough in empathy that policy doesn't really matter to you, then you can support Stein.

You can politely fuck off with talking about privilege to try and convince me to vote for a woman who has built a mountain of power and capital off of the backs of people of color, who she then demonized, threw in jail, and mocked, all the while dangling the carrot of actual change in front of them. Let me remind you that, however humble it was, the very little redemption that persons of color have gained in the past 40 years came as a result of overcoming Clinton's 2008 primary bid and electing a politician of some actual virtue (who she subsequently ran a racist campaign against). Electing a racist aristocrat will never be the answer, at least not for people like me.

However much you may dislike Cornel West, he just recently gave a fairly on-point interview briefly explaining why a Clinton will likely never deserved color peoples' votes and why it is a matter of disgusting white privilege for liberals like you to try to convince them that it is their political imperative. So I say, again, fuck off.

 

[Jack V Savage]

To, however, qualify your disagreement on the repeated farce that I'm a "right-wing propaganda" slave shows the level of discourse of which you are capable. And it's not great.

Well, I'd say that the fact that all you can come up with, as an alleged lefty, is repeating right-wing propaganda about Clinton doesn't speak well of you, though I recognize that you're capable of better. You just have to examine your prejudices, which isn't something that comes easily to anyone.

You can politely fuck off with talking about privilege to try and convince me to vote for a woman who has built a mountain of power and capital off of the backs of people of color, who she then demonized, threw in jail, and mocked, all the while dangling the carrot of actual change in front of them.

I'm not trying to convince you to do anything. I think you're a brick wall. This is a forum, though, and you made a statement that I disagree with, and I commented on it. You should probably toughen up if that offends you.

However much you may dislike Cornel West, he just recently gave a fairly on-point interview briefly explaining why a Clinton will likely never deserved color peoples' votes and why it is a matter of disgusting white privilege for liberals like you to try to convince them that it is their political imperative. So I say, again, fuck off.

So anyway, my point was that Sanders supporters who actually agreed with him on policy will naturally gravitate toward Clinton because her winning would do more to advance his policy goals than Trump winning. This is so obvious that it shouldn't even need to be said, but this is the WR.

 

[Trotsky]

Well, I'd say that the fact that all you can come up with, as an alleged lefty, is repeating right-wing propaganda about Clinton doesn't speak well of you, though I recognize that you're capable of better. You just have to examine your prejudices, which isn't something that comes easily to anyone.

This is why I called you a fucking moron, although that may not be verbatim.

The majority of things the left criticizes Clinton for have been issues for which she has received a total pass by the right, because they are guilty of the same crimes. But literally any criticism of Clinton is right-wing propaganda to you because you're a partisan and that constrains your understanding of policy.

Do you see right-wingers criticizing Clinton for borrowing a racial epithet from a far-right sociologist (http://www.mtv.com/news/2858262/superpredators-and-scapegoats/), subsequently inviting him to help form her husband's crime policy, and using similar terms to systematically dehumanize black persons and supplement her husband's policies of disenfranchising generations of black persons and profiting off their suffering? Do you see right-wingers criticizing her for her hawkish disregard for sovereignty and well-being of foreign nations when it contradicts her own private interests, as was the case in Libya and Honduras? Do you see right-wingers criticizing Clinton for being the only Democrat to be in the top 20 (let alone top 5) politician recipients of oil lobbyist money? For supporting TPP?

Seriously, you're disgustingly dishonest if you think you can continue to pretend that all criticisms of the Clintons are right-wing propaganda, especially when twice now I have cited to leftist European publications

 

[Jack V Savage]

This is why I called you a fucking moron, although that may not be verbatim.

Oh my.

The majority of things the left criticizes Clinton for have been issues for which she has received a total pass by the right, because they are guilty of the same crimes. But literally any criticism of Clinton is right-wing propaganda to you because you're a partisan and that constrains your understanding of policy.

That's clearly false.

Do you see right-wingers criticizing Clinton for borrowing a racial epithet from a far-right sociologist (http://www.mtv.com/news/2858262/superpredators-and-scapegoats/), subsequently inviting him to help form her husband's crime policy, and using similar terms to systematically dehumanize black persons and supplement her husband's policies of disenfranchising generations of black persons and profiting off their suffering?.

Er, yes. All the time. The whole criticism is stupid--every element of it is false (as you unwittingly demonstrated in another thread)--, and not something that people are coming up with organically.

Do you see right-wingers criticizing her for her hawkish disregard for sovereignty and well-being of foreign nations when it contradicts her own private interests, as was the case in Libya and Honduras? Do you see right-wingers criticizing Clinton for being the only Democrat to be in the top 20 (let alone top 5) politician recipients of oil lobbyist money? For supporting TPP?

Yes to the last, and the other two are, again, mind-blowingly stupid criticisms. Republicans get 98% of political donations from people connected to the oil industry. Clinton, being the Democratic nominee gets most of that remaining 2%, which on an individual level puts her up there. It's risible that someone knocking other people's intelligence cannot immediately figure out the problem with that attack.

Seriously, you're disgustingly dishonest if you think you can continue to pretend that all criticisms of the Clintons are right-wing propaganda, especially when twice now I have cited to leftist European publications

Genius, *you* are the one incorrectly asserting that I pretend that all criticisms of the Clintons are right-wing propaganda. In fact, I note that most of the character-based attacks are a result of a decades-long propaganda campaign by the right. I myself have posted actual criticisms. So what's happening here is that you're dishonestly inventing a position for me and then attacking me for holding it.