The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

[Napoleon the Clown]

It's a pretty tough sell that Utah alone should have paramount importance in this election (sorry Nap and Knife).

How dare! It shall be pistols at dawn! /joking


In all seriousness, I've seen nothing indicating Hillary will have any trouble hitting 270 electoral votes, so the electoral impact of Utah possibly going McMullin is irrelevant, IMO. Trump losing Utah would, however, be a huge blow to the GOP's image. Running a guy so awful that it swings Utah away from the Republican nominee would be hilariously bad.

[maraxus2]

What the hell is behind this and do I actually have reason to be so deeply troubled about this? Are people really this dumb that they can't see this foul play and suddenly think Trump is integrity itself?

Yes and No. Comey seems to have engaged in some preemptive ass-covering that blew up in his face. I don't know that this is actually moving any numbers, since undecideds probably aren't paying attention to the news at this stage of the campaign (and maybe won't vote, for that matter).

We still got six days to go and just four were already enough to beat down Clinton's chances at 538's model by 10 percent. You think Trump is now simply waltzing to victory by always repeating the word "E-Mail"?

No. He still doesn't have a campaign, and Clinton's banking a large number of votes in states she needs to win. Trump would need to overperform his base numbers in order to win the election.

Looking at 538, the states Colorado, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire are probably the most important to hold. Honestly, you think Trump is managing to grab these?

No. I see very little evidence that Trump is closing the margin in any of these states. Without Pennsylvania, Trump has an exceedingly difficult path to the White House.

Sorry if I sound like some worrywart, but the mere idea of this guy at the top of such a powerful nation... That even made me post again after years of being idle.

No need to be sorry. Trump's a scary dude, and his supporters are even worse.

It's a pretty tough sell that Utah alone should have paramount importance in this election (sorry Nap and Knife).

How dare! It shall be pistols at dawn! /joking


In all seriousness, I've seen nothing indicating Hillary will have any trouble hitting 270 electoral votes, so the electoral impact of Utah possibly going McMullin is irrelevant, IMO. Trump losing Utah would, however, be a huge blow to the GOP's image. Running a guy so awful that it swings Utah away from the Republican nominee would be hilariously bad.

Shiiiiiiiit.

[Ace Pace]

A question to maraxus2. From my understanding there are 3 different Clinton victory scenarios. From great to worst, they're a popular vote landslide, a strong win and a narrow win.
Assuming a narrow win and the current political atmosphere, how likely is it that she'll be bogged down in recount hell and other such political mud throwing that will significantly impact her ability to govern?

[Dominus Atheos]

Are you only asking maraxus2? Because I can answer your question pretty easily.

There is no scenario where republicans don't throw the kitchen sink at preventing her from governing. Anything the republicans can do, they will do.

Ask about the Senate if you want to know how hobbled HRC will be.

[Dominus Atheos]

And if Hillary Clinton becomes president, I am going to do everything I can do to make sure four years from now, we still got an opening on the Supreme Court.

I promise you that we will be united against any Supreme Court nominee that Hillary Clinton, if she were president, would put up, I promise you.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... t-nominees

[Q99]

Democrat panic check:

538: How much should Democrats panic from 1-10? Answers vary, but 'Less than Republicans'

Early Nevada voting suggests Hillary might beat her polls

A question to maraxus2. From my understanding there are 3 different Clinton victory scenarios. From great to worst, they're a popular vote landslide, a strong win and a narrow win.
Assuming a narrow win and the current political atmosphere, how likely is it that she'll be bogged down in recount hell and other such political mud throwing that will significantly impact her ability to govern?

Recount hell is unlikely to be a major concern.

Mud throwing? Heck, doesn't matter who the Dem is or how much they win by- see how much Obama's strong win prevented it, i.e. not at all. Democrats govern around that as a matter of course now.

[Knife]

Trump is going to lose big time. A significant portion of the population has already voted. He is getting a small shift in the 'national' polls which means nothing.

[Knife]

It's a pretty tough sell that Utah alone should have paramount importance in this election (sorry Nap and Knife).

How dare! It shall be pistols at dawn! /joking


In all seriousness, I've seen nothing indicating Hillary will have any trouble hitting 270 electoral votes, so the electoral impact of Utah possibly going McMullin is irrelevant, IMO. Trump losing Utah would, however, be a huge blow to the GOP's image. Running a guy so awful that it swings Utah away from the Republican nominee would be hilariously bad.

Indeed, Utah plays so little a part it is laughable. The only notable thing is that Utah might be in play to flip, and very little else.

[maraxus2]

A question to maraxus2. From my understanding there are 3 different Clinton victory scenarios. From great to worst, they're a popular vote landslide, a strong win and a narrow win.
Assuming a narrow win and the current political atmosphere, how likely is it that she'll be bogged down in recount hell and other such political mud throwing that will significantly impact her ability to govern?

I doubt it's terribly likely. Bush v. Gore was a very special set of circumstances, any one of which would have prevented the court case from happening. Trump has a possibility of overperforming his polling numbers, but that doesn't seem terribly likely based on the primaries. Plus, Hillary actually has a GOTV operation going, and Trump's campaign really doesn't.

That GOTV stuff usually doesn't matter - candidates win or lose by bigger margins - but they can make a 1-2 point difference. In a close race like we're going to see in NC, might make all the difference. Might make even more of a difference for the white-hot gubernatorial and senate races they have out there.

As far as political mud-throwing goes, the Chair of the House Oversight Committee has already said that he's going to investigate the bejesus out of Clinton. If the Dems retake the Senate, I have no doubt that they'll blow up the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, since the GOP so clearly won't allow an up-or-down vote on Garland's nomination.

Remember, the GOP was in a deep hole back in 2009, and only moved to completely oppose Obama after some (admittedly brief) soul-searching, determining that it would be politically advantageous to oppose all of Obama's initiatives. There were quite a few Republicans who wanted to work with Obama on Healthcare, the Stimulus, and the carbon tax, but they were subordinated to Boehner's and McConnell's political machinations. In exchange, they took over most of the state legislatures, governorships, and the House. Not a bad bargain, provided you don't care about governing.

[The Romulan Republic]

Welp, my ballot is on-route. Voted straight Democratic except for judges (where no party affiliation was listed).

Nothing left to do now but sit back, keep my fingers crossed, and wait for this sorry clusterfuck of an election to end.

Not too scared about Colorado, though. It went to Obama twice, and I'm fairly sure it'll go Clinton this year.

[Iroscato]

The end of this shit-cyclone is almost in sight...

[Gaidin]

Nothing left to do now but sit back, keep my fingers crossed, and wait for this sorry clusterfuck of an election to end.

Hell the running joke in my office is taking election day and the next day off to hide from riots for all I I'm god damn sure my part of the state is pretty damn stable.

[The Romulan Republic]

Democrat panic check:

538: How much should Democrats panic from 1-10? Answers vary, but 'Less than Republicans'

Early Nevada voting suggests Hillary might beat her polls

A question to maraxus2. From my understanding there are 3 different Clinton victory scenarios. From great to worst, they're a popular vote landslide, a strong win and a narrow win.
Assuming a narrow win and the current political atmosphere, how likely is it that she'll be bogged down in recount hell and other such political mud throwing that will significantly impact her ability to govern?

Recount hell is unlikely to be a major concern.

Mud throwing? Heck, doesn't matter who the Dem is or how much they win by- see how much Obama's strong win prevented it, i.e. not at all. Democrats govern around that as a matter of course now.

That's good news from Nevada. Maybe I'm missing something, but looking at which states are likeliest to flip on fivethirtyeight, its hard to see Trump winning without Nevada.

Sadly, those same projections (I'm going off of Polls-only and Polls-plus, not just the Now-cast) show us likely losing Arizona, Iowa, and Ohio, and possibly Florida and NC.

In that scenario, Hillary still wins with 279 electoral college votes, but its depressingly close.

A race against Donald fucking Trump should not be this close. A close win is better than a loss, of course, but it will nonetheless further entrench Trump's brand of bigoted despotism as part of the new mainstream, disgrace America internationally, and ensure that the Republicans have zero incentive not to run another Trumpian nut bag in four years (well, aside from human decency, of course, but when did that ever influence Republican politicians?)

A close win is effectively a draw, then. We preserve the status quo, and get to relive this shit in four years, only it'll probably be even worse.

What frightens me now is not so much the prospect of losing this election, as it is the prospect of an election result which treats a candidate who among other things has openly stated his intent to violate the First and Fourteenth amendments and jail his opponent upon victory, casually discussed using nuclear weapons, proposed abandoning our NATO allies, incited violence, and likely committed (and then bragged about committing) sexual assault, as if he is just another candidate. That's quite surreally horrifying, when you think about it.

Edit: I mean, just let this sink in: we live in a country where, at best, slightly less than half the voters think that Donald Trump is Presidential material. Consider that, and tell me it doesn't make you feel just a little bit sick.

[Vendetta]

Edit: I mean, just let this sink in: we live in a country where, at best, slightly less than half the voters think that Donald Trump is Presidential material. Consider that, and tell me it doesn't make you feel just a little bit sick.

No, slightly less than half of the voters will vote for anything with an R next to its name.

Which is arguably worse than them actually voting for Donald Trump, but appears to be an inherent feature of democracy. People vote for the party because they always have, not because they're actually looking at what it does.

[The Romulan Republic]

It comes to the same thing, though. A bigoted, despotic sexual predator is a serious, viable candidate.

[Vendetta]

Right, and the last time a Clinton was in the White House a kiddy fiddler was the speaker of the House.

plus ça change

[Dominus Atheos]

The only reason that Donald Trump is viable despite being the worst candidate in modern history is because your party nominated the second worst candidate in modern history. Elizabeth Warren would be kicking his ass up and down the street.

I strongly suspect that we are going to see record low turnout this year. You can at least take consolation that Trump's actual support is more like 20-30% of the entire adult population.

[maraxus2]

The only reason that Donald Trump is viable despite being the worst candidate in modern history is because your party nominated the second worst candidate in modern history. Elizabeth Warren would be kicking his ass up and down the street.

I strongly suspect that we are going to see record low turnout this year. You can at least take consolation that Trump's actual support is more like 20-30% of the entire adult population.

[citation needed]

[Q99]

The only reason that Donald Trump is viable despite being the worst candidate in modern history is because your party nominated the second worst candidate in modern history. Elizabeth Warren would be kicking his ass up and down the street.

Oh really not. Hillary designed and made that fall-apart in the debates. And sure, Hillary has baggage... but remember, the big one has been something as petty as e-mails. There would be a similar onslaught with any candidate, it just may take a little more time to build. And yes, Warren does have stuff that can be used for such attacks.

Hillary is not an A+ campaigner like Obama, but she's solid, organized, has allies in abundance (due to ties she forged, she can claim being a continuation of Obama's successes better than anyone but Biden, has strong ties with the black community dating back decades, etc.), very effective in debates, and of course, is a tremendously qualified candidate.

No, slightly less than half of the voters will vote for anything with an R next to its name.

Which is arguably worse than them actually voting for Donald Trump, but appears to be an inherent feature of democracy. People vote for the party because they always have, not because they're actually looking at what it does.

Also, tribal identity, in that most people who look like and share experiences with them are part of the same party. It's harder to shift when your friends and neighbors are largely in the same boat- even if they have doubts, community ties can top that (which is not unique to the Republicans).

[Tribble]

I thought the last Canadian election was a long, grueling, tiresome affair that one hopes will never be repeated... and that was 78 days (3rd longest campaign in Canadian history). How the hell do Americans put up with campaigns like this? I'm totally burned out by it, and I don't even live there! How does the media manage to keep talking about elections perpetually? I mean, there's already talk about who is going to run in 2020 and the current elections aren't even over yet!

[Q99]

I thought the last Canadian election was a long, grueling, tiresome affair that one hopes will never be repeated... and that was 78 days (3rd longest campaign in Canadian history). How the hell do Americans put up with campaigns like this? I'm totally burned out by it, and I don't even live there! How does the media manage to keep talking about elections perpetually? I mean, there's already talk about who is going to run in 2020 and the current elections aren't even over yet!

It really needs to change. It's an effect of primaries being a much bigger deal than they originally were- at first it was mainly just the convention & party bosses that mattered.

[maraxus2]

I thought the last Canadian election was a long, grueling, tiresome affair that one hopes will never be repeated... and that was 78 days (3rd longest campaign in Canadian history). How the hell do Americans put up with campaigns like this? I'm totally burned out by it, and I don't even live there! How does the media manage to keep talking about elections perpetually? I mean, there's already talk about who is going to run in 2020 and the current elections aren't even over yet!

Understandable why people long for the good ol' days when campaigns weren't just shorter - as in five weeks, rather than two years - but it was considered disqualifying to try to campaign longer than that. Then again, it was easier to do that when you just needed support from a few bosses and newspapers to win statewide.

At least the gubernatorial races don't tend to last that long. OH WAIT

[Q99]

How dare! It shall be pistols at dawn! /joking


In all seriousness, I've seen nothing indicating Hillary will have any trouble hitting 270 electoral votes, so the electoral impact of Utah possibly going McMullin is irrelevant, IMO. Trump losing Utah would, however, be a huge blow to the GOP's image. Running a guy so awful that it swings Utah away from the Republican nominee would be hilariously bad.

From what I understand, the odds are somewhat higher that Alaska will get Hillary the win.


....

This is a weird election ^^

[His Divine Shadow]

The only reason that Donald Trump is viable despite being the worst candidate in modern history is because your party nominated the second worst candidate in modern history. Elizabeth Warren would be kicking his ass up and down the street.

I strongly suspect that we are going to see record low turnout this year. You can at least take consolation that Trump's actual support is more like 20-30% of the entire adult population.

Actually the reason I think it is, is due to globalizations effects starting to hit a bigger share of people and causing ever more pissed off people, Trump tapped into that ever growing anger and resentment at being left behind and having no future. The same that many populist parties in europe are.

And they are only going to get stronger because we're still bying into full globalization and free trade as the only ways forward and it's just going to make more people poorer and out of jobs. Even lefties are drinking the cool-aid, which explains the collapse in support of traditional leftist parties in europe.

[The Romulan Republic]

http://www.ew.com/article/2016/11/01/ch ... tion-video

The latest election video from Whedon's super PAC, good for a laugh, at least. And God knows we need one, in this miserable election.

Chris Pine has played starship captains, singing princes, and Texan bank robbers, but his latest role may be his most unhinged performance yet.

Pine stars in the latest election video from director Joss Whedon’s Save the Day initiative, a super PAC aiming to encourage young voters to get to the polls. So far, Whedon has recruited stars like Mark Ruffalo, Robert Downey Jr., Scarlett Johansson, Julianne Moore, Don Cheadle, Bill Hader, Anders Holm, Minka Kelly, Keegan-Michael Key, and more, but for his latest video, Pine takes center stage as a deranged and selfish businessman.

The video unites the captain of the Enterprise and the pilot of Firefly’s Serenity, as Alan Tudyk plays a boss who introduces “Leonard,” a seemingly normal corporate drone played by Pine. As time goes on, however, it becomes clear that Leonard is a little… off, as he throws raging hissy fits about health care plans, shuts down the entire company, and chases his female coworkers around, yelling, “I’m the boss of you! I’m the boss of your whole body!”

“No employee would get away with this,” the PSA goes on to explain. “Why has Congress?”

Watch Whedon’s latest PSA above.