The New American Politics thread

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

Nooope. Polls still don't mean #### until October. But we'll still get hours wasted speculating by pundits because the media's gotta talk about something for the next 3 months (reminder....we still have 3 goddamn months to go....).

I agree, but on the other hand it's undeniable that the polls have moved in Trump's direction lately.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by zamler

A good politician? How? If the system wasn't rigged Hillary would have lost and Sanders would be running against Trump.

If I'm missing green text shame on me but ....

Sanders only dominated open caucus states. In a system that was open primary, the least rigged system, Hillary expands her margin of victory. She was investigated over the email scandal by people who actively wanted her charged, had a republican head of the FBI head up the investigation and was found her actions did not warrant charges.

The DNC pushing around ideas to hurt sanders credibility really has no affect on the race. The Race wasn't close. This was the mos lopsided democratic primary since they started. Bernie just lasted to long. This wasn't some 1/2 point spread where the margins mattered.

The fact that the Bernie or Bust folks think they got screwed really shows a lack of understanding of the proportional distribution of delegates the Dems used and that the left is filled with Authoritarians just like the right but they just have different religious tennants.

[2Stonedbirds]

Originally Posted by New Era

I'm sure that an estranged half-brother that lives on a different continent is of no concern to the Obamas or anyone else. Malik comes off as an attention whore looking to find a new angle to use American politics to line his personal pocket. I'm actually surprised anyone would post this as the intention is is obvious. This guy is a burger and fries short of a happy meal.

I'm sure you are right. It's pretty damn funny though.

Huh? Since when is perimeter fencing and creation of secure zones for a high profile event like this out of the norm? And where did you get the 8' tall fence from? The reporter said she is 5'6 and the fence is expected to be taller than her. What made you jump to 8' as the size? I also fail to see the connection between bridges and security fencing? Or is this some whack-a-doodle meme that is floating around where the Republicans will grasp at any straw to create a faux controversy? Seriously, the Democrats are creating enough controversy on their own, and I mean real issues that should concern the electorate, that stupid inane stuff like this doesn't matter.

Optics, NewEra, optics. Security is good enough for our political leaders, but not the rest of the country. Is it out of the ordinary? Nope. Is it backhanded? Nope. Is it hypocritical? You bet your ass it is.

About 4 other websites report it's an 8' tall, 4 mile long fence. Scale proof fence isn't worth much of its under 6'.

-edit- to be fair, the fence is more than likely to keep Sanders supporters out, who started massing and protesting in Phily yesterday.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I agree, but on the other hand it's undeniable that the polls have moved in Trump's direction lately.

It's been all negative for Hillary for about a month now (e-mail probe, DNC leak) and the convention bump for Trump. Nothing in the polling is that far out of the ordinary so far. We must remember after all McCain took a slight lead later in the game after the Palin roll out. If he's still decently ahead after the DNC maybe there's something to talk about. But as I said the biggest takeaway continues to be how poorly they both are doing. Almost all polls since around June have had between 1 in 5 and 1 in 6 undecided. That is a ton even this far out, outside online polls one of them has always been in the 30s and the other the low 40s.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by T@T

Well now, this should spark some conversation.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politi...oll/index.html

A 4% bounce is expected and the 4 name ballot is likely the most predictive for this election. A 4 point bounce is essentially the average convention bounce.

So poll could read. Probability of Trump winning election relatively unchanged and this poll is more or less meaningless until at least 2 weeks after the Dems convention when the bounces have filtered out.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...nvention-bump/

My presence of 538 models is their polls plus as it factors in convention bounce and it's flat post convention meaning the race as a result of the convention is relatively unchanged. It does mean the convention wasn't a disaster

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

if i was american i would hold my nose and vote trump. in an election about establishment politics being a hot button issue, this is a really big deal and i hope it sinks clinton and the dnc learns from this. let trump sit for 2 years with real power, obstruct what you can, then win the senate and house with huge majorities and deny him a 2nd term.

#### the dnc.

I missed this before, but you've always seem to be a pretty strongly left wing/progressive. Bernie himself says vote for Hillary, we can't afford Donald Trump. Bernie is undoubtebly the most left wing, progressive member of Congress. His opinion on the issue kind of matters no? And yet you'd think it'd be better for Trump to win because he'll "destroy the system" (ignoring how he's surrounding himself with nothing but, well, "the system")

So you're essentially admitting you're an anarchist more than you are a progressive. You just supported Bernie more because he was the likable anarchy candidate. A Trump win means pretty good chance progressive causes get crushed and buried for ages to come. So if you're rooting for Trump to win, I guess you should probably hand in your progressive card now.

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

I missed this before, but you've always seem to be a pretty strongly left wing/progressive. Bernie himself says vote for Hillary, we can't afford Donald Trump. Bernie is undoubtebly the most left wing, progressive member of Congress. His opinion on the issue kind of matters no? And yet you'd think it'd be better for Trump to win because he'll "destroy the system" (ignoring how he's surrounding himself with nothing but, well, "the system")

So you're essentially admitting you're an anarchist more than you are a progressive. You just supported Bernie more because he was the likable anarchy candidate. A Trump win means pretty good chance progressive causes get crushed and buried for ages to come. So if you're rooting for Trump to win, I guess you should probably hand in your progressive card now.

I sure hope the Democrats find a better strategy to woo disgruntled Sanders-supporters than trying to shame them.

Clinton won the nomination. It was done with some under the table tactics from the party establishment. It is frustrating to Clinton supporters because she didn't need to even go near the games and shadiness, but she did.

But Clinton supporters need to get off the high horse, get off the moral ivory towers and start listening. They are the only ones in the entire country who think the status quo is actually working. No one else does.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by killer_carlson

I sure hope the Democrats find a better strategy to woo disgruntled Sanders-supporters than trying to shame them.

You're talking about a guy who holds a pathological hatred of Harper and the Alberta PCs, who is saying he would vote for Trump if he were American.

That, my friend, is worthy of shaming.

In related news, that CNN poll indicates Trump's biggest gains are with the uneducated and the ignorant.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

When asked how many wives he has, he exclaims "that's personal."

His wives, his business. But if you're gay? Ohhhh hells no. Hahaha

Gotta be a kick to the dink with a frozen golf shoe for Obama to hear his brother say what a disappointment the last 8 years have been however.

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

I'm sure you are right. It's pretty damn funny though.

I've got family members I'm absolutely embarrassed to be related to. Just because someone shares your DNA doesn't mean that you end up anything like them.

Like it was mentioned elsewhere in the thread, this is a guy looking for a payout because he's related to someone in the public eye. 15 minutes of fame and a few dollars in the bank, that's all it is.

Optics, NewEra, optics. Security is good enough for our political leaders, but not the rest of the country. Is it out of the ordinary? Nope. Is it backhanded? Nope. Is it hypocritical? You bet your ass it is.

About 4 other websites report it's an 8' tall, 4 mile long fence. Scale proof fence isn't worth much of its under 6'.

-edit- to be fair, the fence is more than likely to keep Sanders supporters out, who started massing and protesting in Phily yesterday.

How many normal people have to worry about the actual threat of assassination? How many times have you worried about leaving your home alone because someone who disagrees with your ideology is going to bomb your place of work?

There is security for the American people--the government spends a massive amount of money funding the Homeland Defense program to ensure it. But for a high profile event--sporting event, concert, political rally--there are added security steps to ensure that there is calm and stability, not chaos.

They are far more high profile than the average American, and for an event like this, added security is as much for the delegates (who generally are just average citizens) as for the politicians.

This is just a massive non-issue. The DNC is going to have its own issues, using this against them is just unnecessary.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by dobbles

I get what you are saying, but I still just don't get the outrage that the DNC was privately supporting the only candidate running who was actually a Democrat.

Its like the Ginsburg thing a week or two ago. People feigned outrage that she had an opinion on issues and pretended that it somehow made her unqualified to be a judge. Newsflash: we all have opinions yet many people hold positions that require them to be as neutral as possible.

So if the most gross example of lack of neutrality was some staffer emailing another staffer saying, "I think someone should push Bernie on his religion as that would put him in a bind in religious states" then color me unimpressed.

Also, I believe you are really underestimating exactly how wrong Trump is for this country. If he wins, it sets the bar even higher for candidates to act like petulant children that just bully their way to what they want. It further allows candidates to ignore facts and only rely on their feelings. It further reinforces that scaring people wins elections even when you lie through your teeth to make things seem scarier than they are. I get that you are suggesting they play the long game here, which is a valid strategy. I just fear that once that train leaves the station, it ain't coming back.

Also, as a liberal that abandoned the Democratic party about 10 years ago, the party can not afford to stoop to the level of Republicans and just be a party of obstructionists. You can't just be against everything the other side proposes. At some point you have to stand for something. I cut my teeth in politics starting with the 2000 election. I spent the first 6 years being frustrated that the Republicans never played fair and let the Democrats have a fair shake. Then they flipped the house and put Pelosi in charge and the Dems played the same games the Reps did. And while that may not have been anything new to older folks, it was enough to remind me that both parties were empty and I didn't want to be anywhere near them.

I'm off to bed. I look forward to reading others responses.

I'm with you on the DNC but not on Ginsburg. I didn't get "outraged" but I think you can hold the opinion that a) yes, judges have personal opinions; but b) they should keep them to themselves while on the bench.

[GirlySports]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

In related news, that CNN poll indicates Trump's biggest gains are with the uneducated and the ignorant.

uneducated and ignorant people matter too! Don't rile them up.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by 2Stonedbirds

Optics, NewEra, optics. Security is good enough for our political leaders, but not the rest of the country. Is it out of the ordinary? Nope. Is it backhanded? Nope. Is it hypocritical? You bet your ass it is.

About 4 other websites report it's an 8' tall, 4 mile long fence. Scale proof fence isn't worth much of its under 6'.

-edit- to be fair, the fence is more than likely to keep Sanders supporters out, who started massing and protesting in Phily yesterday.

How is this any different from the RNC?

http://www.cleveland.com/rnc-2016/in...n_road_cl.html

http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index...rash_bags.html

Actual photo of the fence. If this the wall the Republicans are willing to build what does that say about border security??? Oh, the optics of it all!!! Trump claimed he was going to build a 30' high wall and look at the size of it! Mind you, compared to Trump's hands this may look 30' tall to him. Oh, those optics!!

/snark

Some of the stuff that gets dreamed up to generate outrage is just, well, outrageous!

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

It's also not "hypocrisy". Comparing a security fence for a convention to a ####ing wall around the country is ridiculous.

[CaptainCrunch]

With the Hilary unfavorable poll that came out, and with Trumps unfavorable and with the disgruntled Sandernistas I wouldn't be surprised if this election sets a record for low voter turnout which makes things unpredictable.

Both candidates are absolute steaming garbage and when that happens people will sit at home and watch re-runs of friends rather then waste their time.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You're talking about a guy who holds a pathological hatred of Harper and the Alberta PCs, who is saying he would vote for Trump if he were American.

That, my friend, is worthy of shaming.

In related news, that CNN poll indicates Trump's biggest gains are with the uneducated and the ignorant.

Hey, pot meet kettle. I've always found your views on federal liberals, and the NDP in general to be level headed and fair.. lol.

So as far as Trump v Clinton, I'm sorry you've found yourself so afraid Donald. Do I think Trump would be a great president? Probably, at best, we could hope for him to be a mediocre one for 4 years. The alternative is worse, however. To vote for Clinton is to endorse dirty insider politics, where the needs of the middle class and majority of America is ignored and actually subverted. I'm sorry you're so afraid of Donald, you shouldn't be. He's a blustering oaf playing for the masses to get attention. He isn't Adolf Hitler, there's no muslim concentration camps coming, and I doubt he feels the United States needs room to breathe.

A vote for Hillary Clinton is to acknowledge that you know it's coke vs pepsi, and you want to continue in this endless soda debate with no real consequence. Bernie represented actual change, he was anti establishment and wanted to address the needs of the majority, not the ultra wealthy. Trump resonates with that anti establishment crowd as well. He was able to overcome the RNC attempting to shut him down due to his own celebrity, and has succeeded where Bernie couldn't. I don't view supporting Trump as being an anarchist motivated vote; it's anti establishment. Those are two very different things.

To go back to Coke vs Pepsi for a moment, I remember when Obama won the election in 2008 everyone on the right was going crazy that a socialist was elected. Everyone on the left was celebrating that they finally got a guy in power who will do incredible things for social progressives. In the end we got another 8 years of Pepsi. The war on terror ramped up, drone killings skyrocketed, and Obama care is a half measure that left for profit health care intact. Clinton represents 4-8 more years of that kind of government, but also sends a signal to the major parties that they can hand pick whatever corrupt insider they want and people will just go along like lemmings.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Both candidates are absolute steaming garbage and when that happens people will sit at home and watch re-runs of friends rather then waste their time.

This is a huge advantage for the RNC. Republicans always do a better job in elections with fewer voters. They can get their supporters out better than democrats.

[CaptainCrunch]

Wow I find myself unable to not thank your post.

[GirlySports]

how has the world changed where the democrats are the party of the elite and the republicans are fighting for the common man.

Trump has this option though, to go left of Hillary.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I am super depressed at the potential that there could be, like, a million plus Bernie supporters who agree with Resurrection's take on the world.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

how has the world changed where the democrats are the party of the elite and the republicans are fighting for the common man.

Trump has this option though, to go left of Hillary.

I'm just going off of memory, but wasn't Pre-Presidential whacko Trump fairly liberal in his viewpoints?

This whole election is crazy, and your right, Hillary probably represents the worst of elitism, she's a convenient progressive wrapped in the blanket of corporate America.

In otherwords she'll like most candidates say anything to get elected and get money, but means none of it.

[Drak]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Hey, pot meet kettle. I've always found your views on federal liberals, and the NDP in general to be level headed and fair.. lol.

So as far as Trump v Clinton, I'm sorry you've found yourself so afraid Donald. Do I think Trump would be a great president? Probably, at best, we could hope for him to be a mediocre one for 4 years. The alternative is worse, however. To vote for Clinton is to endorse dirty insider politics, where the needs of the middle class and majority of America is ignored and actually subverted. I'm sorry you're so afraid of Donald, you shouldn't be. He's a blustering oaf playing for the masses to get attention. He isn't Adolf Hitler, there's no muslim concentration camps coming, and I doubt he feels the United States needs room to breathe.

A vote for Hillary Clinton is to acknowledge that you know it's coke vs pepsi, and you want to continue in this endless soda debate with no real consequence. Bernie represented actual change, he was anti establishment and wanted to address the needs of the majority, not the ultra wealthy. Trump resonates with that anti establishment crowd as well. He was able to overcome the RNC attempting to shut him down due to his own celebrity, and has succeeded where Bernie couldn't. I don't view supporting Trump as being an anarchist motivated vote; it's anti establishment. Those are two very different things.

To go back to Coke vs Pepsi for a moment, I remember when Obama won the election in 2008 everyone on the right was going crazy that a socialist was elected. Everyone on the left was celebrating that they finally got a guy in power who will do incredible things for social progressives. In the end we got another 8 years of Pepsi. The war on terror ramped up, drone killings skyrocketed, and Obama care is a half measure that left for profit health care intact. Clinton represents 4-8 more years of that kind of government, but also sends a signal to the major parties that they can hand pick whatever corrupt insider they want and people will just go along like lemmings.



This is a huge advantage for the RNC. Republicans always do a better job in elections with fewer voters. They can get their supporters out better than democrats.

Nah. It's about the supreme court. Who has a better chance of creating change by nominating people to the supreme court? Clinton or Trump? Now wait a minute. I guess it depends on your politics. Personally, I'd prefer to see a liberal sided supreme court for once. What about universal health care? Will a single payer system ever come about with a GOP controlled government? Most unlikely. If there's movement in the senate to blue and they can eventually take back the house they can implement a single payer system. Or perhaps it can start state by state. I dunno I like what we have up here so I support that but one of Trumps goals is to abolish the ACA. Yah the ACA is bad but it's better than what they had and it's a stepping stone.