The 2016 General Election Thread

[nate77]

I think he is probably the most objective journalist named, if that's saying anything at all.

We'll see if that's the case with Ailes out at Fox.

 

[T.Lex]

Some interesting polling today. Trump may be up in Iowa and VA might be a tie. Trump needs to see progress in OH and PA, though.

 

[jamil]

We'll see if that's the case with Ailes out at Fox.

I think Chris Wallace is one of the most objective journalists because he's objective, not because his boss was biased. I thought Wallace was objective when he moderated Meet The Press years ago. I thought he was objective when he was with ABC News. If most journalists were more like him we'd not see the bias in media that we do now.

 

[nate77]

I think Chris Wallace is one of the most objective journalists because he's objective, not because his boss was biased. I thought Wallace was objective when he moderated Meet The Press years ago. I thought he was objective when he was with ABC News. If most journalists were more like him we'd not see the bias in media that we do now.

Good deal, I don't watch any mainstream news, since I don't have cable or satellite.

 

[jamil]

Some interesting polling today. Trump may be up in Iowa and VA might be a tie. Trump needs to see progress in OH and PA, though.

Might help if he'd continually run ads with video of Hillary saying one thing, and the facts saying differently. For example, show the video of her proclaiming to America that she used her private server for convenience, because she wanted to use just one device for personal and State Dept uses. Then show the FBI report that says she used 13 devices.

That might raise some eyebrows in OH and PA.

Or, how about this one: Play the audio of Obama and Joe the Clown saying she may be the most qualified presidential candidate EVER, while showing the text of the FBI report where she testified under oath that she did not understand the classification system.

THAT is most damning. Ask Hillary supporters why they'd pick her given her lies. They'll tell you because she's so qualified, and if they're both liars, might as well pick the qualified one. Well, not so much.

If Trump played that all day long in every swing state, he would win.

 

[jamil]

Good deal, I don't watch any mainstream news, since I don't have cable or satellite.

By the way, I had no idea what Chris Wallace's personal political leanings were until well after he moved to fox in the early 2000s. That's what journalism should be.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Just in: New Hampshire poll just released from WMUR/UNH. Was Clinton +2 last month. Now it's Clinton +9.

Clinton 45
Trump 36

 

[foszoe]

Just in: New Hampshire poll just released from WMUR/UNH. Was Clinton +2 last month. Now it's Clinton +9.

Clinton 45
Trump 36

Isn't that the libertarian state now we know how they're all going to vote they must not like Johnson

 

[dusty88]

Isn't that the libertarian state now we know how they're all going to vote they must not like Johnson

Johnson was at 12% in the poll, which isn't bad considering half the population still don't know who he is.
Whether or not this poll included him in the first question is something I don't know. Some of the polls only ask for the first 2 candidates, then ask a second question with 4 candidates, which does not produce as high of results. I guess that's just how people's minds work.

 

[T.Lex]

Johnson was at 12% in the poll, which isn't bad considering half the population still don't know who he is.
Whether or not this poll included him in the first question is something I don't know. Some of the polls only ask for the first 2 candidates, then ask a second question with 4 candidates, which does not produce as high of results. I guess that's just how people's minds work.

https://cola.unh.edu/sites/cola.unh...blications/gsp2016_summer_preselect090216.pdf

In a four way matchup, 43% of likely November voters say they would vote for Clinton, 32% would vote for Trump, 12% would vote for Johnson, 4% would vote for Stein, 3% would vote for someone else, and 5% are undecided.

So, with all 4, HRC's goes to +11. With Johnson at +12. (Of course, that's not a direct corollary.)

From what I can tell, most of the polls now have an option with all 4 candidates, partly because of the novelty of it. As we get past the debates, I wonder if it'll swing back toward just the top 2.

 

[BugI02]

Some interesting polling today. Trump may be up in Iowa and VA might be a tie. Trump needs to see progress in OH and PA, though.

Ohio has declined from Clinton +5 to Clinton +3.8 in the last two weeks (RCP avg) which is close to or inside the MoE of the polls in the average

Pennsylvania has declined from Clinton +9.2 to Clinton +6 in the last twp weeks (RCP average) with MoEs of 3.4 to 5.6 for the included polls

Define progress

 

[ATM]

Define progress

Progress: A media outlet posting arbitrary numbers you prefer after previously posting arbitrary numbers you don't prefer.

 

[foszoe]

Progress: A media outlet posting arbitrary numbers you prefer after previously posting arbitrary numbers you don't prefer.

Absolutely

 

[BugI02]

Progress: A media outlet posting arbitrary numbers you prefer after previously posting arbitrary numbers you don't prefer.

Regrettably, I think attributing greater import to poll numbers moving in a favored direction is endemic here on INGO (not aimed at you, T. Lex). Sometimes I prefer to play the game as opposed to just spectate

You'll undoubtedly notice much less posting about Trump's poll numbers now that they're improving and an immediate flurry of posts when they begin to worsen again (as they undoubtedly will)

I think some hide the agenda even from themselves

 

[jamil]

Regrettably, I think attributing greater import to poll numbers moving in a favored direction is endemic here on INGO (not aimed at you, T. Lex). Sometimes I prefer to play the game as opposed to just spectate

You'll undoubtedly notice much less posting about Trump's poll numbers now that they're improving and an immediate flurry of posts when they begin to worsen again (as they undoubtedly will)

I think some hide the agenda even from themselves

Now, I'm not thinking you're directing that at me, per se. However, I do want to point out that whatever it is and whomever is doing what you're complaining about, needn't be agenda driven. For me, I'd like to have a candidate who isn't a con man or a criminal, or a true progressive douchebag wearing libertarian threads. I think most of the not-trump INGOers want some version of that. That's not an agenda, at least not for me.

I will admit that I do find myself at least marginally more pleased with the universe when I see Trump's poll numbers increase. I'm not going to try to explain that. I'm not sure I fully understand it myself. But I am certain enough that I don't want that man to be President, maybe even as much as I don't want that evil woman to be President. Some of you guys who've bought into Trumpism more fully, are completely fine with bringing about the death of conservatism as a fair price to pay for the death of the establishment. I believe it's certain that a Trump victory would shift the base of the Republican party away from conservatism, towards Trumpism.

Point is, whatever I have to say negative or positive about Trump has more to do with ideological differences, and what I believe is reality, and that is not agenda driven. We are just ideologically different. Trump is nowhere even close to an individualist. His convention made that clear to me. That's a deal breaker.

 

[BugI02]

I usually quote a post that I'm responding to to minimize ambiguity

 

[BugI02]

Now, I'm not thinking you're directing that at me, per se. However, I do want to point out that whatever it is and whomever is doing what you're complaining about, needn't be agenda driven. For me, I'd like to have a candidate who isn't a con man or a criminal, or a true progressive douchebag wearing libertarian threads. I think most of the not-trump INGOers want some version of that. That's not an agenda, at least not for me.

I will admit that I do find myself at least marginally more pleased with the universe when I see Trump's poll numbers increase. I'm not going to try to explain that. I'm not sure I fully understand it myself. But I am certain enough that I don't want that man to be President, maybe even as much as I don't want that evil woman to be President. Some of you guys who've bought into Trumpism more fully, are completely fine with bringing about the death of conservatism as a fair price to pay for the death of the establishment. I believe it's certain that a Trump victory would shift the base of the Republican party away from conservatism, towards Trumpism.

Point is, whatever I have to say negative or positive about Trump has more to do with ideological differences, and what I believe is reality, and that is not agenda driven. We are just ideologically different. Trump is nowhere even close to an individualist. His convention made that clear to me. That's a deal breaker.

You incorrectly conflate the death of the Republican Party with the death of conservatism. Conservatism is an idea and an ideal and can only be killed if it is extinguished in the hearts of its adherents. The Republican party is a bloated bureaucracy attached to the body politic, parasitic and primarily concerned with its own survival

I say this with no particular relish, but the Republican party we knew is shattered beyond repair. I have a feeling this must be what it is like being a congregant when a schism happens. The Republican party has been my party for most of my adult life but I can't see any going back for those like me.

There is for us a profound sense of betrayal. 'The Party Decides' gave us a weak candidate in 08 and admonished us to support him, and despite our doubts we did. Second verse, same as the first in 12 with the added 'night of the long knives' ending of the Ron Paul 'threat'. Again our support was asked and given, with similar results. In both cases we put aside our differences and backed the mainstream GOPe candidate in the general

Now there is a candidate we actually like who won the primary fairly, playing by the rules, and who represents the best hope for an alternative to the unmitigated disaster that a Hilary Clinton presidency will surely be. We had an expectation that once he was the candidate that Republicans would put aside their doubts and get behind the candidate, quid pro quo for the support we gave their lackluster choices in the past.

Instead we get continued attempts to torpedo the man's candidacy in every way possible. I believe there are people making a principled decision not to support Trump and i believe you and T.Lex, among others are within that camp. But I also believe others more correctly meet your description as destructors of the Republican party, intent on destroying what they can no longer control

I have read, and give credence to, some op-ed pieces that posit that elements of neverTrump are invested in ensuring as large a defeat for him as possible. The reason is they feel if Trump loses in a landslide, people will blame Trump. Conversely, if Trump loses by a few points they fear (rightly) that people will blame them. I cannot ever again make common cause with people who will willingly usher in what will likely be good practice for the tribulations just to selfishly position themselves (they think) to pick up the pieces and remake the Republican party in their own image.

I don't see myself or those of like mind making the devil's bargain with the GOPe ever again. So you have (at least) two distinct fragments. The Republican party will become the party of Trumpism/Nationalism/America First and those that fancy themselves 'true conservatives' will I imagine form some kind of party of their own. They may have the GOPe and neo-cons and welcome. The schism may actually generate an interesting marketplace of ideas but both fragments will be too weak to be effective for several cycles, which is moot because the damage will be done in just one

Bon chance

 

[jamil]

You incorrectly conflate the death of the Republican Party with the death of conservatism. Conservatism is an idea and an ideal and can only be killed if it is extinguished in the hearts of its adherents. The Republican party is a bloated bureaucracy attached to the body politic, parasitic and primarily concerned with its own survival

I say this with no particular relish, but the Republican party we knew is shattered beyond repair. I have a feeling this must be what it is like being a congregant when a schism happens. The Republican party has been my party for most of my adult life but I can't see any going back for those like me.

There is for us a profound sense of betrayal. 'The Party Decides' gave us a weak candidate in 08 and admonished us to support him, and despite our doubts we did. Second verse, same as the first in 12 with the added 'night of the long knives' ending of the Ron Paul 'threat'. Again our support was asked and given, with similar results. In both cases we put aside our differences and backed the mainstream GOPe candidate in the general

Now there is a candidate we actually like who won the primary fairly, playing by the rules, and who represents the best hope for an alternative to the unmitigated disaster that a Hilary Clinton presidency will surely be. We had an expectation that once he was the candidate that Republicans would put aside their doubts and get behind the candidate, quid pro quo for the support we gave their lackluster choices in the past.

Instead we get continued attempts to torpedo the man's candidacy in every way possible. I believe there are people making a principled decision not to support Trump and i believe you and T.Lex, among others are within that camp. But I also believe others more correctly meet your description as destructors of the Republican party, intent on destroying what they can no longer control

I have read, and give credence to, some op-ed pieces that posit that elements of neverTrump are invested in ensuring as large a defeat for him as possible. The reason is they feel if Trump loses in a landslide, people will blame Trump. Conversely, if Trump loses by a few points they fear (rightly) that people will blame them. I cannot ever again make common cause with people who will willingly usher in what will likely be good practice for the tribulations just to selfishly position themselves (they think) to pick up the pieces and remake the Republican party in their own image.

I don't see myself or those of like mind making the devil's bargain with the GOPe ever again. So you have (at least) two distinct fragments. The Republican party will become the party of Trumpism/Nationalism/America First and those that fancy themselves 'true conservatives' will I imagine form some kind of party of their own. They may have the GOPe and neo-cons and welcome. The schism may actually generate an interesting marketplace of ideas but both fragments will be too weak to be effective for several cycles, which is moot because the damage will be done in just one

Bon chance

I have many of the same disagreements with and complaints against the Republican Party. I'm not a member of the Party for those reasons. I am also fed up with GOPe bull****. However, that part of your argument aside, your opening premise is incorrect. I am not conflating the death of the Republican Party with the death of conservatism. I said that if Trump wins, I think the Republican party base will shift towards Trumpism and away from conservatism. As an ideology Conservatism won't die. But as a legislative coalition, conservatives could lose considerable influence. If there is any death of conservatism, it would be just within the Republican party, not as an ideology.

If Trump loses, I think the Republican Party might morph into something else altogether, depending on how the blame gets divvied. If conservatives get blamed for Trump, that's probably not any better than the impact of Trump winning. I could see a scenario where the Republican party could clean house of both conservatives and Trumpists, become more moderate, and gain back many of the moderate independents that left the party because of the more hardline right.

But either way, whether Trump wins or loses. The whole point of my post was, I don't think posters here have an agenda. I don't. I have an ideology that causes me to post the ideas I post. Anti-trump posts are ideologically and principally driven. Surely you can see that. Surely you can see beyond your accusations.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Could Trump turn Texas blue?

(Consider the source, however. "Surveymonkey" not exactly scientific.)

 

[T.Lex]

Ohio has declined from Clinton +5 to Clinton +3.8 in the last two weeks (RCP avg) which is close to or inside the MoE of the polls in the average

Pennsylvania has declined from Clinton +9.2 to Clinton +6 in the last twp weeks (RCP average) with MoEs of 3.4 to 5.6 for the included polls

Define progress

That's fair.

I'd measure positive progress from Trump in OH and PA as 2 consecutive polling periods (this late in the campaign, I'd accept a day or so of overlap) with multiple polls showing him within the MOE.

Over the weekend, there was another poll from PA which showed HRC with basically a 2x MOE lead. A couple polls do have it at the MOE, but still a Clinton lead. I do not count HRC's stiff-arm as positive progress for Trump in PA.

I'm expecting some more OH polling to come out this week. It has been awhile.

Trump campaigning in VA and Fl, which is good, with Pence in MO.