American Politics Thread: Orange is the new POTUS

[direwolf]

Paul Ryan now saying that Trump made the right call with DACA, just four days after he said he disagreed with it being rescinded. Christ, this guy is such a spineless turd.

https://thinkprogress.org/paul-ryan-...-8765bc447614/

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Really, such as?

while you're at it, explain how other Republicans could have won the Republican nominee for POTUS.

edit - actually, forget it, I think we've already been through this, and I'm not going to read a 10 paragraph answer that doesn't answer the question.

Campaigning in Wisconsin and Michigan, for one. Separating herself from Obama on refugees and immigration, even if you agree with Obama, was probably worth quite a few votes in the midwest / Pennsylvania, and possibly Florida as well. I don't want to re-litigate the election at length either, so I'll just say this: if you really think there was no strategy she could have employed to win an extra ~90,000 people across three states, if you can't use your imagination and think of a dozen things she could have done to tip that miniscule balance, I don't know what to tell you. That's an insane position to hold.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Really? Every time someone says something like this I remind them to look at the margin of victory. There were many things that she could have done to move the needle that much.

I thought she blamed Bernie in the book.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by troutman

I thought she blamed Bernie in the book.

Not exactly.

Spoiler!

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Campaigning in Wisconsin and Michigan, for one. Separating herself from Obama on refugees and immigration, even if you agree with Obama, was probably worth quite a few votes in the midwest / Pennsylvania, and possibly Florida as well. I don't want to re-litigate the election at length either, so I'll just say this: if you really think there was no strategy she could have employed to win an extra ~90,000 people across three states, if you can't use your imagination and think of a dozen things she could have done to tip that miniscule balance, I don't know what to tell you. That's an insane position to hold.

Really? how do you know anything you are dreaming up wouldn't have worked against her.
She had the most sane platform and she was running against a clown, the not so bright, racists etc. made a choice based on that.
It should never have been that close, but the fact is, we'll never know. Whatever you're thinking she could have said or done, may or may NOT have tipped it to her side, but you're confusing what ifs into facts, like Trump.
Things you think she could have done, may not, in fact, have helped.
Or maybe you're going at this from the angle that, maybe Carly Fiorina, or Rick Santorum could have won the POTUS, if only they had said and done a couple things differently

In the meantime, I completely agree with her quote I posted above.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Really? how do you know anything you are dreaming up wouldn't have worked against her.
She had the most sane platform and she was running against a clown, the not so bright, racists etc. made a choice based on that.
It should never have been that close, but the fact is, we'll never know. Whatever you're thinking she could have said or done, may or may NOT have tipped it to her side, but you're confusing what ifs into facts, like Trump.
Things you think she could have done, may not, in fact, have helped.
Or maybe you're going at this from the angle that, maybe Carly Fiorina, or Rick Santorum could have won the POTUS, if only they had said and done a couple things differently

In the meantime, I completely agree with her quote I posted above.

You keep asking what she could have done differently and every time people answer that she should have spent time campaigning in the northern states instead of places like Arizona. She didn't campaign in those supposedly safe states and lost them by mere tens of thousands of votes.

Do you believe that campaigning has no impact?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by direwolf

Paul Ryan now saying that Trump made the right call with DACA, just four days after he said he disagreed with it being rescinded. Christ, this guy is such a spineless turd.

https://thinkprogress.org/paul-ryan-...-8765bc447614/

He is a turd, but to be fair (based only on what I read in the quoted article) while he didn't think it should be rescinded but also said it should be Congress' responsibility to deal with it. Trump has given Congress 6 months to deal with it.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Do you believe that campaigning has no impact?

In this case I'm not sure it would have. I mean people voted for a guy that had no policies laid out (and still really doesn't). Campaigning ought to be for laying out policies and that's what Clinton did form start to finish. Anyone who voted for Trump either disagree with that platform or had no interest in understanding it in the first place.

Now it can also be used to fire up the base but that was never going to be Clinton's strength or even within her capability. She was a boring, safe candidate who just happened to clearly be the best person for the job out of all those that ran on both sides (I'd say Bernie was capable as well). People didn't want that full stop. I'm not sure how Clinton campaigning or changing positions on things changes that (and you changing positions would have bit her hard...only Trump is allowed to say something different everytime he opens his mouth).

I hope this experience shows people one thing...boring and safe isn't bad when it comes to leadership of a country.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by edslunch

He is a turd, but to be fair (based only on what I read in the quoted article) while he didn't think it should be rescinded but also said it should be Congress' responsibility to deal with it. Trump has given Congress 6 months to deal with it.

That's the exact same task Obama gave Congress and he gave them YEARS. If they can come to a solution in 6 months, and they should be able to given it had support on both sides of the aisles, why couldn't they do that before? Oh right because of the black democrat in the oval office. No other reason. And if that doesn't tell every single person exactly what this incarnation of the GOP is about nothing will.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by ernie

In this case I'm not sure it would have. I mean people voted for a guy that had no policies laid out (and still really doesn't). Campaigning ought to be for laying out policies and that's what Clinton did form start to finish. Anyone who voted for Trump either disagree with that platform or had no interest in understanding it in the first place.

Now it can also be used to fire up the base but that was never going to be Clinton's strength or even within her capability. She was a boring, safe candidate who just happened to clearly be the best person for the job out of all those that ran on both sides (I'd say Bernie was capable as well). People didn't want that full stop. I'm not sure how Clinton campaigning or changing positions on things changes that (and you changing positions would have bit her hard...only Trump is allowed to say something different everytime he opens his mouth).

I hope this experience shows people one thing...boring and safe isn't bad when it comes to leadership of a country.

I don't know. I assume candidates visit places because it gives some sort of a bump. It's hard to believe she couldn't have squeezed out the necessary votes if she had more of a presence in those states.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Not exactly.

Spoiler!

I truly wish that Hillary would just shut up and become invisible.

She is a burdensome weight that the Democratic Party needs to free itself from.

[GirlySports]

CNN getting carried away with this book today, i had it on and they love it

Defiant Hillary looks to explain loss
Clinton blast Sanders for lasting damage
Clinton was right about Sanders

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by edslunch

You keep asking what she could have done differently and every time people answer that she should have spent time campaigning in the northern states instead of places like Arizona. She didn't campaign in those supposedly safe states and lost them by mere tens of thousands of votes.

Do you believe that campaigning has no impact?

I mean saying campaigning for a couple of hours in 3 safe states shouldn't have made the difference, when you are running a sane platform that benefits more people, against a mentally unstable clown. Clearly I, like Hillary unestimated the sheer stupidity of the average American voter.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

I mean saying campaigning for a couple of hours in 3 safe states should have made the difference, when you are running a sane platform against a mentally unstable clown. Clearly I, like Hillary unestimated the sheer stupidity of the average American voter.

Obviously they weren't safe states, so that's the first error - not understanding the state of play / taking them for granted.

[photon]

President Trump confounded leaders from his own party on Wednesday by siding with Democrats on plans to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling, upending negotiations on a variety of crucial policy areas this fall and further damaging relationships with Republicans on Capitol Hill.

Trump made his position clear at a White House meeting with congressional leaders on Wednesday, agreeing with Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) by voicing support for a three-month bill to fund the government and raise the debt ceiling for the same amount of time.

“We had a very good meeting with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer,” Trump told reporters Wednesday on Air Force One while traveling to North Dakota. “We agreed to a three-month extension on debt ceiling, which they consider to be sacred — very important — always we’ll agree on debt ceiling automatically because of the importance of it.”

Trump said the package should also include funding for Hurricane Harvey relief.


The president’s decision came barely an hour after House Speaker Paul D. Ryan (R-Wis.) panned the idea of a brief debt hike, accusing Democrats of “playing politics” with much needed aid for Hurricane Harvey victims by trying to create pressure for their agenda.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/power...a5b_story.html

I'm not sure why this is being seen as such a win for the Democrats and why Trump supporters are losing their minds over this.

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Obviously they weren't safe states, so that's the first error - not understanding the state of play / taking them for granted.

Do you think she would just have to show up to those states to get the votes needed, or she would have had to say something?
What exactly do you think she could have said to turn Trump voters into Hillary voters?
You guys make it sound like an adult cajoling a child into eating their vegetables.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by photon

I'm not sure why this is being seen as such a win for the Democrats and why Trump supporters are losing their minds over this.

Does it include funding for the wall? Or just stupid hurricane relief?

[DuffMan]

Originally Posted by photon

I'm not sure why this is being seen as such a win for the Democrats and why Trump supporters are losing their minds over this.

Because a republican POTUS worked with the Dems against the gops wishes. Unheard of, just another crazy day in Trumpland.

[ernie]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Obviously they weren't safe states, so that's the first error - not understanding the state of play / taking them for granted.

But they didn't know that they weren't safe I think is the point that was trying to be made. The Dems internal polling clearly had states as safe and that's what they believed. That isn't a failing with Clinton or even really with the strategists who act on the information provided. Their polling wasn't picking up the wave of discontent among many of the smaller rural districts and the increased motivation older voters had to cast their votes. There were other things as well but I don't think they "ignored" states. They went where the numbers they were getting suggested they should go.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by DuffMan

Do you think she would just have to show up to those states to get the votes needed, or she would have had to say something?
What exactly do you think she could have said to turn Trump voters into Hillary voters?
You guys make it sound like an adult cajoling a child into eating their vegetables.

I don't know, maybe recognize that those states are less safe, or even recognize the your path to the White House depends on those states, and put a plan together to make sure you win them. Isn't this basic political strategy? Are you telling by me they pulled out all the stops to win those states and too bad they just couldn't pull it off? Can you acknowledge that she seemed to put less effort into those states than others?