Elections Clinton vs. Trump Polls thread, v2

Who wins Florida on election day?

  • Total voters
    116
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
SouthoftheAndes said:
He has some questionable decisions. If it's true he is trying to flood Europe with Muslims then that deserves criticism.

Still though I admire him for his financial genius.
Click to expand...

That's the kind of thing I'm talking about. He actually has a well-thought-out plan for dealing with the EU's refugee problem.
 
HereticBD said:
High horse? That's normal Jack. He brought out his flying unicorn for this Trump shit.
Click to expand...

See, Pete, this is the kind of poster that thinks you're on the right track. Check out his history.
 
Anung Un Rama said:
But Hillary says she doesn't support TPP and admits NAFTA was a mistake (but she supported it).
And I don't deny that he didn't do anything to minimize it, but neither did Clinton, and as a business man he has a responsibility to his investors.

The frustrating aspect about every argument this election cycle, and why I love chiming in on the panicking Clinton support threads, is the double standards that are applied over and over again. And not just by sherdoggers, DC and the media are rotten with hypocrisy, too. (not accusing you of this, btw).

Clinton can raise money from SuperPacs and people believe her when she says she opposes Citizens United.
Clinton supports nearly every trade deal she gets a whiff of, including TPP, but people choose to believe her when she says she opposes TPP.
Trump claims to want to make "America Great Again" and address our trade agreements, but his clothing line is manufactured overseas (95% of America's clothing industry is made overseas) and its somehow another nail in the coffin.

And those are just a few examples. This same b.s. goes on in stories about Russia, the police vs. BLM, foreign policy, etc, etc.

If people started looking at this a less of a witch hunt and more as a problem with how our country operates, there wouldn't be a Trump or a Clinton to fight about. We'd have real candidates talking about real issues. This charade, whether it results in Trump or Clinton getting elected, is going to lead to greater tension over the next 4 years because of the dishonest and condescending discourse coming from DC and the MSM into our living rooms not only feeds into it, it allows real problems to fester.
Click to expand...

Either she is for it and lying or she is against and doing a flip flop, so she can't really win. You and I are never going to agree on Clinton, she does not support the TPP in its current form, which to me sounds like a political bs way of saying I support it but will bend to will of the bernies. She is not repealing nafta so I am not worried about that. I see her as an imperfect politician (although easily as good as anything else realistically on offer).

She gets lots of shit over citizens United and trade. But at the same time Clinton is not saying she wants to tear it all down and is making compromises with the left of her party, so why would moderates scream at her over citizens United? I think CU should be reversed but gerrymandering is doing a much worse thing to the system. I am also more worried about the Supreme Court than CU. The left can decide that her compromise and working with her on some good policies ideas are worth pursuing (they are IMO).

Or they can go with Trump who is rightly getting called out because he is tapping into culteral discontent to propose nothing positive and nothing even coherent. And he has not lived any of it. If you want to rip it all down you better at least have a basic knowledge of policy and have lived it, otherwise you are just another native opportunist. Warren makes good points on trade that I don't buy in several areas but are least worth looking at, trump is just beating a drum that has made him a ton of money.

One thing that underlies all this we don't entirely agree with what is wrong with the country. Lope sided fiscal policy, Gerry mandering, post civil war identity politics, and management off the effects of trade are my issues not the increase trade in itself. So from that perspective a moderate left (or right) politician with coherent set of policies will always trump the Drumpf.

I think the real nail in trumps coffin is how he is dealing with all this. He had a shot here, read the R party perfectly, but just can't pivot to a real election, he has really under performed so far. The msm had been helping for quite some time so I don't blame them.
 
Gandhi said:
Either she is for it and lying or she is against and doing a flip flop, so she can't really win. You and I are never going to agree on Clinton, she does not support the TPP in its current form, which to me sounds like a political bs way of saying I support it but will bend to will of the bernies. She is not repealing nafta so I am not worried about that. I see her as an imperfect politician (although easily as good as anything else realistically on offer).

She gets lots of shit over citizens United and trade. But at the same time Clinton is not saying she wants to tear it all down and is making compromises with the left of her party, so why would moderates scream at her over citizens United? I think CU should be reversed but gerrymandering is doing a much worse thing to the system. I am also more worried about the Supreme Court than CU. The left can decide that her compromise and working with her on some good policies ideas are worth pursuing (they are IMO).

Or they can go with Trump who is rightly getting called out because he is tapping into culteral discontent to propose nothing positive and nothing even coherent. And he has not lived any of it. If you want to rip it all down you better at least have a basic knowledge of policy and have lived it, otherwise you are just another native opportunist. Warren makes good points on trade that I don't buy in several areas but are least worth looking at, trump is just beating a drum that has made him a ton of money.

One thing that underlies all this we don't entirely agree with what is wrong with the country. Lope sided fiscal policy, Gerry mandering, post civil war identity politics, and management off the effects of trade are my issues not the increase trade in itself. So from that perspective a moderate left (or right) politician with coherent set of policies will always trump the Drumpf.

I think the real nail in trumps coffin is how he is dealing with all this. He had a shot here, read the R party perfectly, but just can't pivot to a real election, he has really under performed so far. The msm had been helping for quite some time so I don't blame them.
Click to expand...

I think for this discussion we can agree to disagree on trade, but for the record, I'm not anti-trade, I'm anti-trade policies that hurt the American middle class and jeopardize US sovereignty to benefit the 1%. And its only one of a dozen+ issues that I see going wrong with this country, including the ones you mentioned.

The position I'm taking in this thread has nothing to do with trade or CU, simply the double standard that both sides apply to their team.
You say Clinton does oppose TPP as its written, but acknowledge the heavy likelihood of bullshit (guaranteed bullshit imo). Why can't Trump want to make America great again while acting on his companies best interests within the law? I agree with you on the "fuck Trump"; its sad that we even have to discuss him at all at this late stage. But imo, there is no high ground for the Clinton crowd. Its been fear mongering and arguing subjective degrees of dishonesty. People should be rejecting them both in droves instead of defending either of them.
 
Anung Un Rama said:
I think for this discussion we can agree to disagree on trade, but for the record, I'm not anti-trade, I'm anti-trade policies that hurt the American middle class and jeopardize US sovereignty to benefit the 1%. And its only one of a dozen+ issues that I see going wrong with this country, including the ones you mentioned.

The position I'm taking in this thread has nothing to do with trade or CU, simply the double standard that both sides apply to their team.
You say Clinton does oppose TPP as its written, but acknowledge the heavy likelihood of bullshit (guaranteed bullshit imo). Why can't Trump want to make America great again while acting on his companies best interests within the law? I agree with you on the "fuck Trump"; its sad that we even have to discuss him at all at this late stage. But imo, there is no high ground for the Clinton crowd. Its been fear mongering and arguing subjective degrees of dishonesty. People should be rejecting them both in droves instead of defending either of them.
Click to expand...

The big difference is the one I already mentioned. One acknowledges that there are real issues to address but does not want to throw the baby out with the bath water. Nuance / hypocrisy / compromise... I think we can agree to disagree what mixture of the above Hilary is coming from. But Trump is campaigning on pure anger on issues he has done his up most to benefit from economically.

If Hilary were running on tearing down the system like Bernie was, she might have a shot at the trump title. Trade, illegals, education scams, using bk laws to rip off creditors, etc. combined with his natavist BS makes him more scary to me than almost any mainstream politician.

I would even take McCain, Romney, etc. over him (but not plain or Cruz). I don't think I am holding the high ground so much as the normal ground. These subjective degrees of dishonesty are vastly different from my perspective.
 
Jack V Savage said:
I know that Soros is a boogeyman in the nutter community, but most people recognize him as a genius and a great humanitarian.
Click to expand...
Ironic. The Koch brothers have the same reputation.
 
Space said:
Ron Paul is no Trump though; like Bernie, his supporters will likely be too stoned to actually show up to vote. Not necessarily so for Trump supporters.

I think the "monster vote" will be a real thing this election.

http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/2016/08/08/the-monster-vote/

The “Monster Vote”

trump-rally-albany.jpg


"The Conservative Treehouse posted several articles that caught my attention about “The Monster Vote”. This the roughly 100 million people in the US eligible to vote who don’t vote. His claim is that these traditional non-voters are voting for Trump.

And his evidence from primary turnout matched his predictions very well, so much that it inspired me to do my own analysis and try to come up with what I think the “Monster Vote” could be."
Click to expand...
I remember this "theory". I liked it better the first time...when Bill Clinton invented it.

The difference, of course, was that extrapolation of known demographics applied to the inactive bloc supported his claims that it skews heavily in favor of Democrats. And it still didn't work for Hillary vs. Obama, or Kerry vs. Bush Jr (or Bernie vs. Hillary, or Paul vs. anybody).


But you keep tapping those heels, Dorothy.
 
Madmick said:
I remember this "theory". I liked it better the first time...when Bill Clinton invented it.

The difference, of course, was that extrapolation of known demographics applied to the inactive bloc supported his claims that it skews heavily in favor of Democrats. And it still didn't work for Hillary vs. Obama, or Kerry vs. Bush Jr (or Bernie vs. Hillary, or Paul vs. anybody).


But you keep tapping those heels, Dorothy.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the only thing Bill invented was a better way to diddle the White House interns, and the most cunning embezzlement foundation of modern times.

We shall see who wins, but it's clear that Trump is activating inactive voters, while Hillary is simply hoping to get the support of a lackadaisical Bernie base. Gary Johnson and Jill Stein will likely take many of her voters away too.
 
Madmick said:
Ironic. The Koch brothers have the same reputation.
Click to expand...

Look up "ironic." And your point is more of what I was talking about. Truth, not mindless balance, is the standard we should follow.
 
Gandhi said:
Either she is for it and lying or she is against and doing a flip flop, so she can't really win. You and I are never going to agree on Clinton, she does not support the TPP in its current form, which to me sounds like a political bs way of saying I support it but will bend to will of the bernies. She is not repealing nafta so I am not worried about that. I see her as an imperfect politician (although easily as good as anything else realistically on offer).
Click to expand...

The TPP issue is one of her most annoying positions. I see it as something that has positives and negatives that balance out pretty evenly, but no one is making the case for it so people who don't follow this stuff much or have underlying knowledge necessary to evaluate it are under the impression that it's some kind of disaster. I don't think "flip flop" is accurate, as of course she's going to say positives things about it while it's in progress and she's part of the process. But she should at least acknowledge that there's a serious discussion to be had.

The NAFTA discussions are also pretty topsy-turvy. Generally regarded as Bush 41's greatest accomplishment by people in both parties, but a lot of WRers see it as unambiguously bad and blame the first lady of the following administration (and, to be fair, one of its most important staffers).

Orwell's essays should be required reading in schools, as they're the best guide for the kind of post-truth world we seem to be entering.
 
SidJustice said:
I still fully expect her lead to shrink a bit in the next couple of weeks.

But will it shrink enough for El Trumpo? Probably not.

Exciting times for non Trump supporters though.
Click to expand...

The scary part is her lead could actually GROW. Hillary has an enormous infrastructure to canvas, call, and get out the vote. Trump has none. Hillary has a huge war chest which she is spending. Trump has a small one which he isn't. Hillary has 2 popular past Presidents and a national treasure First Lady putting on armor as we speak. Trump has no one of consequence- NO ONE- truly behind him.

Hillary has been forced to publicly deal with her biggest Achilles heels (E-mail/Benghazi) for years, YEARS. Trump has not yet been forced to face his (tax returns, publicly saying he knows more about ISIS than our generals/wanting to use nukes on ISIS) in a meaningful way. But that is in the post my friend. Bet your life on it. Think about all of the completely stupid and outrageous shit Donald has said since the campaign started. All of it is going to been replayed, over and over again ad nauseam, between now and the election.

Not to mention that Donald has to choose to death by 1000 cuts by not attending the debates, or death by disembowelment by attending them. There is literally nothing, NOTHING positive for Donald to look forward to between now and the election.

My pic- Hillary by 10 million popular votes and 300 electoral votes. Dems take back the senate, or at least get parity back when you count the I's, and gain 8 seats in the house.
 
cooks1 said:
The scary part is her lead could actually GROW. Hillary has an enormous infrastructure to canvas, call, and get out the vote. Trump has none. Hillary has a huge war chest which she is spending. Trump has a small one which he isn't. Hillary has 2 popular past Presidents and a national treasure First Lady putting on armor as we speak. Trump has no one of consequence- NO ONE- truly behind him.

Hillary has been forced to publicly deal with her biggest Achilles heels (E-mail/Benghazi) for years, YEARS. Trump has not yet been forced to face his (tax returns, publicly saying he knows more about ISIS than our generals/wanting to use nukes on ISIS) in a meaningful way. But that is in the post my friend. Bet your life on it. Think about all of the completely stupid and outrageous shit Donald has said since the campaign started. All of it is going to been replayed, over and over again ad nauseam, between now and the election.

Not to mention that Donald has to choose to death by 1000 cuts by not attending the debates, or death by disembowelment by attending them. There is literally nothing, NOTHING positive for Donald to look forward to between now and the election.

My pic- Hillary by 10 million popular votes and 300 electoral votes. Dems take back the senate, or at least get parity back when you count the I's, and gain 8 seats in the house.
Click to expand...

Sounds lovely, but I'd say that her current lead is big enough that it means that she has people who normally vote Republican (and who presumably dislike her and agree with Trump's policy ideas, even if they rightly find him personally repellent). I'd have to think that they are pretty unreliable, and that some will slide back. I feel pretty confident that she'll win, probably pretty big, but I think her final margin will be smaller than current polls show.
 
Jack V Savage said:
Sounds lovely, but I'd say that her current lead is big enough that it means that she has people who normally vote Republican (and who presumably dislike her and agree with Trump's policy ideas, even if they rightly find him personally repellent). I'd have to think that they are pretty unreliable, and that some will slide back. I feel pretty confident that she'll win, probably pretty big, but I think her final margin will be smaller than current polls show.
Click to expand...

Well time will tell I suppose. I just think the closer it gets to voting time the more people are going to come to their senses. 300 more electoral votes and 10 million more popular votes is where I think it will end up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,281,016
Messages
58,335,682
Members
176,003
Latest member
HeneryH

Share this page

Back
Top