The 2016 US Election (Part IV)

[SolarpunkFan]

Did early voting yesterday. A long, grueling walk in unseasonably warm November weather (though the fact that I'm out of shape had something to do with the grueling-ness without a doubt) to the city hall to fulfill my civic duty.

Ballot cast and now waiting for the rest of the chips to fall.

I seem a little more at ease now. Maybe because I have a little bit of closure after casting my votes?

[Tsyroc]

As someone who is watching this whole thing from the outside, could you please answer me a few questions?

I'm starting to get nightmares from the idea that Trump is actually winning the whole thing thanks to his bud Comey serving him victory on a silver platter. You can't tell me he didn't do this to cause the maximum damage and he then hid himself away to wait out the fallout. His letter was clearly worded intentionally to imply "Hilly is criminal" without outright saying so, allowing him to save his ass on a technicality.

Worst thing is, it seems to be working like a charm. I really can't explain the numbers otherwise. I know this is not exactly a national election, but 50 single ones, but in all important states Trump suddenly has a comet-like rise.

Now:

• 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?
• 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"?
• 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?

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.

I'm not sure the new stuff from Comey is going to make much of a difference to voters. Maybe it could be an issue legally before Clinton could be sworn in in January but I think it's too late to make enough of a difference in the election. Lots of people have voted early, I did more than a weak ago. Democrats also tend to vote early more than Republicans so if any of them were on the fence about voting for a third party there's a good chance it is too late already.

Most of the people I know who want to vote for Clinton already ignore all the reasons she shouldn't be president so this isn't going to change their minds. Just as the people who are going to vote for Trump manage to ignore his worst bits and see some of his ridiculousness as a possible benefit.

Now, I would not be shocked if after Clinton is elected that the Republicans make a big push to try to get her impeached because of the previous email/server investigation but this new stuff is pretty much just noise when compared to what was previously found. If she doesn't win I hope she just goes away and most definitely does not make another run at it in 4 years.

[Q99]

The fact that the Comey stuff is pretty blatant rule-breaking to mess with the election his part, *and* the actual information is irrelevantly small addition to what itself is a blown-out-of-proportion scandal (among the things that have nothing to do with her ability to be president: E-mails. They're a good reason to not put her in charge of IT, but don't have to do with her qualifications), all mean it's not likely to be telling.

Did early voting yesterday. A long, grueling walk in unseasonably warm November weather (though the fact that I'm out of shape had something to do with the grueling-ness without a doubt) to the city hall to fulfill my civic duty.

Ballot cast and now waiting for the rest of the chips to fall.

I seem a little more at ease now. Maybe because I have a little bit of closure after casting my votes?

Yea, probably. My state isn't so into early voting so I haven't done so...

[The Romulan Republic]

As someone who is watching this whole thing from the outside, could you please answer me a few questions?

I'm starting to get nightmares from the idea that Trump is actually winning the whole thing thanks to his bud Comey serving him victory on a silver platter. You can't tell me he didn't do this to cause the maximum damage and he then hid himself away to wait out the fallout. His letter was clearly worded intentionally to imply "Hilly is criminal" without outright saying so, allowing him to save his ass on a technicality.

Worst thing is, it seems to be working like a charm. I really can't explain the numbers otherwise. I know this is not exactly a national election, but 50 single ones, but in all important states Trump suddenly has a comet-like rise.

Now:

• 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?
• 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"?
• 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?

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.

I'm not sure the new stuff from Comey is going to make much of a difference to voters. Maybe it could be an issue legally before Clinton could be sworn in in January but I think it's too late to make enough of a difference in the election. Lots of people have voted early, I did more than a weak ago. Democrats also tend to vote early more than Republicans so if any of them were on the fence about voting for a third party there's a good chance it is too late already.

Most of the people I know who want to vote for Clinton already ignore all the reasons she shouldn't be president so this isn't going to change their minds. Just as the people who are going to vote for Trump manage to ignore his worst bits and see some of his ridiculousness as a possible benefit.

Now, I would not be shocked if after Clinton is elected that the Republicans make a big push to try to get her impeached because of the previous email/server investigation but this new stuff is pretty much just noise when compared to what was previously found. If she doesn't win I hope she just goes away and most definitely does not make another run at it in 4 years.

Of course she'll run again in four years, just like they pretty much all do.

Of course, I also expect her to face another progressive primary challenge in four years, at least if she reneges on certain parts of the platform.

[FireNexus]

If she faces a primary challenge in four years, it will be even less helpful than Sanders was. Primarying a sitting president is about the least useful thing you can do to get what you want. Then again, the BernieBots are long on rhetoric and short on actual solutions, so I'd expect them to pull that shit despite the stakes of throwing a census year election to a party that's probably still deep in the throes of Trumpism.

What's the worst that can happen? Another decade of gerrymandered districts designed to give a permanent legislative majority to an evershrinking demographic of dumb white men. We have to punish the thouhhtcriminal $hillary! No need to consider how we get what we want! She was mean to us. Ugh.

[Thanas]

Obama did not face one despite reneging on quite a few campaign pledges.

[Tribun]

It's just...

Looking at the numbers, Trump did surge in many important state by such an insane amout that I wonder: What the hell is going on?

Seriously, where is that all coming from and what does it mean? Such kind of shift in a mere week is outright insane, especially since even 538 does show it. This is the real reason I'm worried. For example, in Pennsylvania Clinton declined to almost half of her lead at 538 in less than a week. In Colorado it's the same picture. Not to speak of places like Florida, Noth Carolina and Nevada, where Trump's rise in just six days is insane. And we still have six more days to go.

I really don't understand this.

[FireNexus]

Obama did not face one despite reneging on quite a few campaign pledges.

Obama was the Bernie Sanders-type candidate of his election. He just happened to win because he's Obama and not a guy whose appeal to young people will forever remain a mystery to me. Clinton is the kind of person with the kind of background I can see getting primaried.

Look at how the bots attacked Warren and even Sanders after they endorsed her. There's a contingent on the left that wants to turn the Dems into a left-wing tea party. And Clinton is their Mitt Romney.

[FireNexus]

It's just...

Looking at the numbers, Trump did surge in many important state by such an insane amout that I wonder: What the hell is going on?

Seriously, where is that all coming from and what does it mean? Such kind of shift in a mere week is outright insane, especially since even 538 does show it. This is the real reason I'm worried. For example, in Pennsylvania Clinton declined to almost half of her lead at 538 in less than a week. In Colorado it's the same picture. Not to speak of places like Florida, Noth Carolina and Nevada, where Trump's rise in just six days is insane. And we still have six more days to go.

I really don't understand this.

The election is crazy. Trump keeps driving away then bringing home GOP voters. Likely voter screens have struggled to interpret the low-propensity voters that are hard for Trump. Enthusiasm on both sides is dampened by the disliked candidates. And all in an environment where the volume of polling is reduced from past cycles.

If there was ever going to be a big polling miss, this would be the year. My hope is that it underestimates Clinton by 4-5 points and she curbstomps Trump. My bet is that there is a 2-3 point variance between the polls and reality. And who benefits is anyone's guess. Uneducated gut feeling there, but my gut isn't too bad most of the time.

[Civil War Man]

I don't think it's a given that she'd run again in 4 years. Assuming she wins this year, I figure it's likely that she'd run for reelection unless she starts having actual health problems (instead of the masturbatory fantasies right wingers have of her being on death's door). But should things not work out, I don't think she'd run in 2020.

That said, I'd rather not talk about the 2020 election. This campaign is exhausting enough. We don't need to start the next one before this one's even finished.

[Elheru Aran]

Checking the Wiki list of Presidents, it seems that the majority of single term Presidents were such only because they didn't win re-election. A few (very few actually, only three) did not seek re-election; a couple of others weren't nominated by their party for the election; and the rest died in office. There are a couple of weird cases like Cleveland (two non-consecutive terms) and Theodore Roosevelt (served a full term after completing most of McKinley's second term, skipped a couple and then sought re-election on a different party platform) but they're outliers.

So I would expect Clinton to likely follow the norm. The only reasons I would expect her to not do so: serious health issues (as in 'gets cancer, going to die in a year' or 'serious case of pneumonia that lays her out for months' or whatever), being incapable of achieving anything significant apart from getting elected combined with serious public rancour, and that's about it. Health or failure. Family reasons could also be a consideration, as much as they are for any other President.

[Q99]

Knowing Hillary, she's going to do a solid job and not have the 'ambitious woman minus' she has this time around, because she'll only be keeping it.

Obama was the Bernie Sanders-type candidate of his election. He just happened to win because he's Obama and not a guy whose appeal to young people will forever remain a mystery to me. Clinton is the kind of person with the kind of background I can see getting primaried.

Obama, notably, is still a career politician who works with and has ties with others, not a lone-wolf type like Bernie. So he was able to draw beyond the liberal left.

Ironic, that Hillary's at least as far left as him if not further on most issues.

Obama did not face one despite reneging on quite a few campaign pledges.

His batting average was good for a president, and he delivered on his two biggest- stimulus and healthcare reform. Granted the latter ended up being an RBI rather than a grand slam, but he did a lot.

Gay marriage getting through under him didn't hurt either.

[FireNexus]

Apparently the woman who accused Trump of raping her as a child at Jeffrey Epstein parties is going to be holding a press conference this , finally speaking publicly about her case. It's probably not going to move the needle at all, but it's certainly the most alarming accusation against him if it is true.

I wonder if the lawyer was in contact with the Clinton campaign about getting her to go public. Putting a face to the accusation gives the story a better chance to gain traction. And it's pretty convenient that this is happening now. I heard about this months ago and thought it was likely to go public around now back then, though.

[Flagg]

Knowing Hillary, she's going to do a solid job and not have the 'ambitious woman minus' she has this time around, because she'll only be keeping it.

Obama was the Bernie Sanders-type candidate of his election. He just happened to win because he's Obama and not a guy whose appeal to young people will forever remain a mystery to me. Clinton is the kind of person with the kind of background I can see getting primaried.

Obama, notably, is still a career politician who works with and has ties with others, not a lone-wolf type like Bernie. So he was able to draw beyond the liberal left.

Ironic, that Hillary's at least as far left as him if not further on most issues.

Obama did not face one despite reneging on quite a few campaign pledges.

His batting average was good for a president, and he delivered on his two biggest- stimulus and healthcare reform. Granted the latter ended up being an RBI rather than a grand slam, but he did a lot.

Gay marriage getting through under him didn't hurt either.

Yeah, and lied through his teeth about Afghanistan. I don't blame him for Gitmo since even the Democratic congress were wilting lillies, but the fact that we're still effectively following Dubya's foreign policy is damning.

[Gandalf]

Yeah, and lied through his teeth about Afghanistan. I don't blame him for Gitmo since even the Democratic congress were wilting lillies, but the fact that we're still effectively following Dubya's foreign policy is damning.

Also torture. He went from "nobody is above the law" to "we tortured some folks, let's all move on."

[Flagg]

Yeah, and lied through his teeth about Afghanistan. I don't blame him for Gitmo since even the Democratic congress were wilting lillies, but the fact that we're still effectively following Dubya's foreign policy is damning.

Also torture. He went from "nobody is above the law" to "we tortured some folks, let's all move on."

Yeah, there's that. But again, the Democratic congress had power to impeach Chimpus Caesar for 2 years so it was a failure on every level of government.

[Q99]

Yeah, and lied through his teeth about Afghanistan. I don't blame him for Gitmo since even the Democratic congress were wilting lillies, but the fact that we're still effectively following Dubya's foreign policy is damning.

Part of Afghanistan is probably seeing how fast Iraq fell apart when we left. It's one thing to want to leave, but not leaving a country in chaos/making sure they can handle us leaving is kinda important considering we broke their countries in the first place.

[Flagg]

Yeah, and lied through his teeth about Afghanistan. I don't blame him for Gitmo since even the Democratic congress were wilting lillies, but the fact that we're still effectively following Dubya's foreign policy is damning.

Part of Afghanistan is probably seeing how fast Iraq fell apart when we left. It's one thing to want to leave, but not leaving a country in chaos/making sure they can handle us leaving is kinda important considering we broke their countries in the first place.

We didn't break Afghanistan, it was broken when we got there. And we sure as hell aren't fixing anything.

[Exonerate]

Just a stray thought: There's been a lot of rhetoric from Trump's camp about how the the election is illegitimate, egged on by Trump himself declaring he'd accept the results if he won (with converse left unsaid). But if Trump wins, will Clinton supporters accept his victory as a legitimate, given Russian interference and now Comey's inconvenient timing?

[Q99]

Frankly, yes we will. We'll be super-mad about it, but note how we're not calling rigged or similar. If there is something challengeable in court, that could happen, but that's about it.

We didn't break Afghanistan, it was broken when we got there. And we sure as hell aren't fixing anything.

If it's ever going to be un-broken, it needs relatively stable time to build institutions and infrastructure.

[Flagg]

Frankly, yes we will. We'll be super-mad about it, but note how we're not calling rigged or similar. If there is something challengeable in court, that could happen, but that's about it.

We didn't break Afghanistan, it was broken when we got there. And we sure as hell aren't fixing anything.

If it's ever going to be un-broken, it needs relatively stable time to build institutions and infrastructure.

And we've been there 15 years with no real progress. If you don't know the layman definition for insanity it's "doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result". It didn't work in Vietnam or Iraq, and it hasn't worked in Afghanistan. And it never will. There's a reason it's called "the graveyard of empires".

[Q99]

And we've been there 15 years with no real progress. If you don't know the layman definition for insanity it's "doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result". It didn't work in Vietnam or Iraq, and it hasn't worked in Afghanistan. And it never will. There's a reason it's called "the graveyard of empires".

I disagree that there's been no progress, we've been able to step down involvement for some time to a more advisory/training role, they've had a transfer of power between leaders (to an economist who's specialty of research is how to rebuild failed states), and important thing, the locals *want* us there.

I mean, going in there to begin with wasn't a good idea, but once we're there, and now that things are semi-stable, pulling out doesn't strike me as a good idea either. Afghanistan isn't Vietnam or Iraq, and nor is it inevitable that it stays a failed state.

[Flagg]

And we've been there 15 years with no real progress. If you don't know the layman definition for insanity it's "doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result". It didn't work in Vietnam or Iraq, and it hasn't worked in Afghanistan. And it never will. There's a reason it's called "the graveyard of empires".

I disagree that there's been no progress, we've been able to step down involvement for some time to a more advisory/training role, they've had a transfer of power between leaders (to an economist who's specialty of research is how to rebuild failed states), and important thing, the locals *want* us there.

I mean, going in there to begin with wasn't a good idea, but once we're there, and now that things are semi-stable, pulling out doesn't strike me as a good idea either. Afghanistan isn't Vietnam or Iraq, and nor is it inevitable that it stays a failed state.

The locals want us there because they can kill Americans easier.

[Flagg]

Just a stray thought: There's been a lot of rhetoric from Trump's camp about how the the election is illegitimate, egged on by Trump himself declaring he'd accept the results if he won (with converse left unsaid). But if Trump wins, will Clinton supporters accept his victory as a legitimate, given Russian interference and now Comey's inconvenient timing?

I won't accept a Donnie Douchebag presidency because Rape, tax evasion, and inciting violence are all high crimes. Not to mention his being Putins taint-licker. He's clearly an Oligarch who wants to turn America into an Oligarchy.

[Q99]

The locals want us there because they can kill Americans easier.

The government wants us there to help, as do most of the people. The Taliban hates us, but this isn't like Iraq where even our 'friendly' government didn't like us at all.

Again, I'm not pro-intervention in general and was against going in, but pulling out should be done in a way that doesn't make things worse if possible- and to me it looks possible that they could end up a stable state without an absurd amount of support.

I won't accept a Donnie Douchebag presidency because Rape, tax evasion, and inciting violence are all high crimes. Not to mention his being Putins taint-licker. He's clearly an Oligarch who wants to turn America into an Oligarchy.

This is true.