US presidential elections

First topic message reminder :

Morning all,

So after the win in Iowa for Ted Cruz last night where do we see this going?

I'm thinking Clinton v Rubio. Lots of twists and turns still to come though.

I always have a shivering reservation about the line that readily comes up: "He/she ain't got experience".

What experience do you need?  And who gets enough experience outside the White House to ensure they'll be a good set of hands inside it?

Clinton deserves the White house because she's been there before and knows her way around the rooms?  There are Interns that know the building better than she does.....

Does she get the job because she knows how to sit down with a bunch of informed people from every strand of government and ask for advice on pretty much all of it?  The place is packed to the rafters with advisors and secretaries and under-secretaries and more advisors and legal eagles who read through everything with their fine tooth comb...and more advisors to tell them what to look for.  The President is a figurehead, surrounded by a lot of talking heads who Practically RUN the Office itself.  You don't have to be Einstein to be President, as many Presidents have proven!

We create the dynasties (Clinton, Kennedy, Bush) because we nod to this lazy idea that only people who have been politicians ( or come from the inner circle of nod, nod, wink, wink knowledge) have the necessary skills and 'experience' to a President.  
That's why I still back Trump.  These age old maxims and 'truisms' have to be consigned to history.  I like that people are confused that all these comfortable assumptions are being toyed with in the present.  Trump has been a massive shock to the smug apparatus of both old American parties.  A good shock and shake up of cobweb attitudes is a good thing.  Things have been much too complacent.

Nore Stat

And Nate Silver at 538.com currently has the chances about 2:1 in favour of Clinton. However, Trump's chances of winning the electoral college need him to win all the states that are currently about 50/50 plus one that's a bit towards Clinton at the moment. It's possible, and certainly looks a lot more plausible than it did 10 days ago, but you'd still rather be in Clinton's position (and if the polls are to be believed, the tightening of the race has stopped and HRC is slightly extending her lead).

There are though some reasons to think that this year's polling could be wrong (or should we say more wrong than normal - polls are only +/-2% or so anyway just based on sample size and reliability of responses), but there are pulls in both directions:
1 - Trump's 'anti-establishment' positions make him popular with groups of people (working class, mostly white, mostly male) who have not in recent history been particularly likely voters and so are relatively lightly weighted in opinion polls, but who might turn out in unusually high numbers.
2 - Obama had a very big pull for black voters, driving their turn-out way up (and is why the 2012 polls suggested a tighter result than actually happened). Clinton doesn't have the same pull in this demographic, and may also be being hurt by the BLM controversy. This could be a demographic that drops for her and gives Trump an advantage in some states (Ohio I believe is the main swing state where black votes are a key).

On the other hand
3 - Trump has upset just about everyone bar his core vote in the campaign: blacks, Hispanics, Mexicans and women. Hispanics, especially relatively recent arrivals in the US, are a group that favour Democrats, but that have historically a very low voter turn out. Also, they are apparently difficult to poll because they tend to be quite transient. There are some suggestions from early voting that Hispanic participation is way up in important states (Florida and Nevada), which would be a positive for Clinton. Oh, and overall Hispanic population is up as well, so it could be a double whammy of more of them and more voting.
4 - Clinton being the first woman Presidential candidate must surely be having some pull factor for women voters, even disregarding Trump's comments, and there is some suggestion of a 'shy Clinton' female (Republican) voter when giving poll responses in the presence of a male partner (see below).

As the USA is a country that seems to love over-complicating its election, there has been early voting going on in many states for about a week. In most cases, the only data that is available is the registered party affiliation of those who have voted, but there is an exit poll in Florida (admittedly a relatively small poll and not by one of the major polling organisations) that suggests Clinton was picking up a lot of votes from registered Republicans (28% of those registered as Republicans voting for her as opposed to iirc 7% of registered Democrats voting for the Donald). Suggestions were the swing came both from some Hispanic communities (Cubans in particular are not fans of DT) and from Republican women. If this is somewhere near accurate, and repeated across the board, there should be a big win for HRC, indeed it would not be beyond the bounds of possibility that even Texas narrowly votes Democrat (was +15% for Romney last election). It wouldn't make any real difference, but would be the biggest kick in the teeth that could possibly be delivered to the GOP

Thanks for that comment dummy half.  It seems that Trump's use of language has a tendency to offend.   But the models do indicate there is a momentum for change.  Trump needed to tone it down, use more anodyne language, be humble, cut out the childish retorts, act "presidential" and ride the momentum wave.

Interesting point Secretfly regarding political dynasties.  I have been reading about the Habsburgs - marrying and conniving themselves & their relatives / offspring into positions of power.  It seems the same things happens whether we have rule by monarchy, theocracy or democracy.  It's all about knowing the rules of the "game" and the "institutions of power & influence".

If Trump wins the election Congress can shut him out.  All these scare stories implying Trump would be a dangerous dictator are false - the US political system was set up from the beginning to prevent that from happening.

NS

Trump's improved polling has come in a week or so when he's managed to avoid saying anything controversial, or indeed particularly news-worthy - the closing of the gap has been mostly Trump gaining support from previously undecided / 3rd party rather than a decline in HRC's numbers. The suggestion is that it's mostly those with (conventional) Republican sympathies coming back to him.

As for SF's comment above, the point about experience is interesting, although it should be noted that Obama had relatively little experience and no obvious 'dynastic' when elected President, so the argument made is only partly true. My concern over Trump specifically is not just a lack of experience of politics, but is his randomness and tendency to say the first thing that comes into his head. Basically, it's that I don't trust dodgy salesmen, and DT is pretty much the archetype.

It is rather worrying that all the issues seem to be about competency rather than policy.  This is with regard both main candidates.  With Trump it is sort of self inflicted - he opens his mouth and you can't be sure what will come out.  With Clinton it has been about decision making (email servers, choice of aides, shady charities ...).

How is it worrying that there are issues of competency?

Also, Trump's policies of handing billions of dollars to billionaires and building that ridiculous wall are stupid. You must see that.

Pr4wn wrote:How is it worrying that there are issues of competency? ...

If you are in charge of the interviewing process and the short-list was made up of incompetents, then one would be worried.  Often after the interview process the post remains unfilled when it is decided that none of the short-listed candidates are capable for the position.

Hearing Hillary Clinton campaigning, she sounds croaky, unhealthy and on her last legs.  Issues of whether she will have the energy for the post.  Maybe there should be a health / fitness test before being short-listed.  In normal business they often have an age limit - which is a crude way of assessing physical fitness. Clinton is 69 and Trump is 70 but Hillary seems to be the one with less energy.

Sorry, that completely came out wrong. The question was supposed to be why is it worrying that all of the issues appear to be about competency over policy. Trying to work and debate at the same time....

And seriously with the tinfoil hat health stuff. Give me a break.

What are the policy differences?

Policy  ..................  Trump ................................................ Clinton
Immigration ........... Close vetting ....................................... Open border
Business ................ Reassess business deals in US's favour ... Business as usual
US Jobs ................. Support US jobs, bring jobs back to US ... Business as usual
Defence abroad ......  Get others to pay for their own defence .. Business as usual
Foreign Affairs ........  Become more isolationist ...................... Business as usual
Health Care ............ Scrap Obama Care ................................ Keep Obama Care
Attitude to UK ......... First in queue ....................................... Back of queue
...........

Pr4wn wrote: ... And seriously with the tinfoil hat health stuff. Give me a break.

So health is not an issue? "Tinfoil hat" is empty rhetoric on your part.

Nore Staat wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:How is it worrying that there are issues of competency? ...

If you are in charge of the interviewing process and the short-list was made up of incompetents, then one would be worried.  Often after the interview process the post remains unfilled when it is decided that none of the short-listed candidates are capable for the position.

Hearing Hillary Clinton campaigning, she sounds croaky, unhealthy and on her last legs.  Issues of whether she will have the energy for the post.  Maybe there should be a health / fitness test before being short-listed.  In normal business they often have an age limit - which is a crude way of assessing physical fitness.  Clinton is 69 and Trump is 70 but Hillary seems to be the one with less energy.

She's probably been taking nitric acid in line with your medical advice.

Nore Staat wrote:

Pr4wn wrote:How is it worrying that there are issues of competency? ...

If you are in charge of the interviewing process and the short-list was made up of incompetents, then one would be worried.  Often after the interview process the post remains unfilled when it is decided that none of the short-listed candidates are capable for the position.

Hearing Hillary Clinton campaigning, she sounds croaky, unhealthy and on her last legs.  Issues of whether she will have the energy for the post.  Maybe there should be a health / fitness test before being short-listed.  In normal business they often have an age limit - which is a crude way of assessing physical fitness.  Clinton is 69 and Trump is 70 but Hillary seems to be the one with less energy.

So now you are reduced to simply parroting DT?

That only makes you sound as ridiculous as he does.

Should being susceptible to ailments any person can get rule someone unfit for the presidency?

So much emotion one would expect we have US voters in the comments section.  Britain is currently a place where immature minds get radicalised to become terrorists.  The first attempt on Trumps life this election was by a Brit:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/06/21/british-man-accused-of-trying-to-kill-donald-trump-acted-weird-and-nervous-before-rally/

Has someone hacked NS's account and turned it into a Trump Troll?

Pr4wn wrote:Has someone hacked NS's account and turned it into a Trump Troll?

Is this not the religious response? - when all opinion and all arguments that one disagrees with are not met with counter arguments but with righteous and aggressive accusations of heresy?

At the end of the day it is one person one vote and all the individual should worry about is who he or she is going to vote for, and respect the independence of others to vote as they see fit.  But that is not enough for the "undemocrats" who claim how others should vote and if these others don't vote accordingly they are "heretics" and are then verbally abused - the modern day "pogrom".

I assume Pr4wn is proposing an "anybody but Trump" and a "all Trump voters are racists and deserving of scorn" policy.  If I had the vote, which I don't, I would vote according to policy.  Then I would look at the candidate and assess whether they were competent for the position.  Having done that, I would probably decide to spoil my ballot paper. I also might have faith in the political system in the US which is set up to prevent the President acting "silly" - everything has to be passed by congress.

I would argue that the statement Will Self made about Brexit holds true with the American election by just replacing the word Brexit with Trump.

'Not all Brexiters are racists, but almost all racists will be voting for Brexit'

Hero wrote:I would argue that the statement Will Self made about Brexit holds true with the American election by just replacing the word Brexit with Trump.

'Not all Brexiters are racists, but almost all racists will be voting for Brexit'

I can understand that viewpoint.  But what was Will Self's motivation in articulating that statement in relation to "The Referendum".  Surely he was making a political claim that Brexit itself is racist.

But if one considers racism - is being "anti-white" racist?  Is being anti-English racist?  Is hating "British" culture racist?  There seems to be a claim by  some as to what is and what is not racism.  But these are just claims and not necessarily the truth.

Hero wrote:I would argue that the statement Will Self made about Brexit holds true with the American election by just replacing the word Brexit with Trump.

'Not all Brexiters are racists, but almost all racists will be voting for Brexit'

Well it sounds a smart maxim but it's a pretty pointless one.  We all know racists+Brexit are happy bedfellows (you might say it would be a definition of 'racist').  The conclusion, however, in no way de-legitimises the desire for Brexit amongst non-racists.  So the linkage of the two is not required as there is no cause and effect link.  
You might as well say "Not all Manchester United Managers have been pompous Portuguese asswholes, but Jose Mourhino is a pompous Portuguese asswhole."

Not all Trump supporters are racists...or grab women by the crotch when saying Hello

FBI clears Hillary for a second time, thus proving the golden-haired goddess is whiter than white after all.

And Trump is all like:






Wonder if he's still going to stand by the election result?

dyrewolfe wrote:


Wonder if he's still going to stand by the election result?

"I think..., no actually, I know, let me tell you...., I Know the election was rigged. The Clintons and the FBI rigged the election. They did it, they rigged the whole thing. Believe me."

So - if he says that after the election? So what? It's been said before and not that many years ago. He doesn't have to bow before the Great Empress and plead undying fealty. It's America - land of free speech - or at least it was before the eternally offended rose to prominence

Of course he can say that. I just hope that if he does, someone of substance tells him to f*** off.

Hillary will say "F**k Off" to him in her inaugural speech. And America will swoon. The Lady President has BALLs after all!

Some people are voting for Donald Trump, because they want an anti-establishment figure to go to Washington and shake the place up.  Obama was supposed to do that - but he seems to have become part of the establishment.

Donald Trump makes so many political mistakes one can see why some believe him to be unelectable.  For example, by focusing so much on Hillary Clintons emails (rather than policy) he looks a bit of a fool when the FBI clears Hillary Clinton.  So he has to discredit the FBI ... Trump is so politically naïve, one wonders if he is being advised. It could also mean that Donald Trump hasn't thought through his own policies and that he is just "winging it". This was the view of Trussman.

Nore Staat wrote:Some people are voting for Donald Trump, because they want an anti-establishment figure to go to Washington and shake the place up.  Obama was supposed to do that - but he seems to have become part of the establishment.

Donald Trump makes so many political mistakes one can see why some believe him to be unelectable.  For example, by focusing so much on Hillary Clintons emails (rather than policy) he looks a bit of a fool when the FBI clears Hillary Clinton.  So he has to discredit the FBI ... Trump is so politically naïve, one wonders if he is being advised.

But of course that sense of a rebellious guy who doesn't care for the niceties of the political establishment (and their cronies) is only strengthened by the idea that he looks and acts politically naïve.
Few if any who were not going to vote for Trump changed their minds during this election. Also though, he can do very little now to damage his reputation amongst those that will still vote for him now. The issue is already settled. Trump supporters will vote for their man regardless of the blunders and awkwardness. All that's needed now is the number counters to call it.

Well that settles it - the Boss has done his thing and bestowed his blessing. I always like to hear what the Boss has to say, even in some way over-long songs about pick-up trucks and five and dimes....

But sorry Bruce..... that's a pretty non-rebellious choice you're making. Think you lost your blue collar somewhere in Asbury Park

Nore Staat wrote:What are the policy differences?

Policy  ..................  Trump ................................................ Clinton
Immigration ........... Close vetting ....................................... Open border
Business ................ Reassess business deals in US's favour ... Business as usual
US Jobs ................. Support US jobs, bring jobs back to US ... Business as usual
Defence abroad ......  Get others to pay for their own defence .. Business as usual
Foreign Affairs ........  Become more isolationist ...................... Business as usual
Health Care ............ Scrap Obama Care ................................ Keep Obama Care
Attitude to UK ......... First in queue ....................................... Back of queue
...........

Well if I were American, the only reasons I'd even consider Trump would be for his stance on immigration and jobs. Unfortunately my worry that he would end up being a national embarrassment would still mean I voted for Clinton.

Maybe underneath all the buffoonery, bad behaviour and petulance, there are some remaining scraps of decency, but if so, they are extremely well hidden. It would be like voting for Philip Green to be PM.

SecretFly wrote:Well that settles it - the Boss has done his thing and bestowed his blessing.  I always like to hear what the Boss has to say, even in some way over-long songs about pick-up trucks and five and dimes....

But sorry Bruce..... that's a pretty non-rebellious choice you're making.  Think you lost your blue collar somewhere in Asbury Park

What and you think Donald Trump cares about the blue-collar masses he is apparently so eager to attract?

The only person DT cares about is himself (and maybe his immediate family). Those poor folks in Detroit and the impoverished factory / mining towns who are pinning their hopes on him to bring back jobs and prosperity are set to be bitterly disappointed IMO. People like Trump only look after their families and cronies.

Also, as far as I know Springsteen never claimed to be anti-establishment or a rebel. Just portrayed himself as what he was. And I don't think there are any rules against working class people voting for what they believe in, if it goes against union dogma or whatever.

You would vote for someone but of his rascist stance? Wow.

dyrewolfe wrote:

SecretFly wrote:Well that settles it - the Boss has done his thing and bestowed his blessing.  I always like to hear what the Boss has to say, even in some way over-long songs about pick-up trucks and five and dimes....

But sorry Bruce..... that's a pretty non-rebellious choice you're making.  Think you lost your blue collar somewhere in Asbury Park

What and you think Donald Trump cares about the blue-collar masses he is apparently so eager to attract?

The only person DT cares about is himself (and maybe his immediate family). Those poor folks in Detroit and the impoverished factory / mining towns who are pinning their hopes on him to bring back jobs and prosperity are set to be bitterly disappointed IMO. People like Trump only look after their families and cronies.

Also, as far as I know Springsteen never claimed to be anti-establishment or a rebel. Just portrayed himself as what he was. And I don't think there are any rules against working class people voting for what they believe in, if it goes against union dogma or whatever.

The only person both candidates care about is themselves.  So you don't win that first point.
That a guy like Trump could rise above all the other conventional Republican candidates says something that too many commentators want to ignore or belittle.  The Heartland of America (that bit in the middle with often poverty rates that would make even some African nations blush - the forgotten bit in the middle) is sick, sore and tired of conventional aspirational politicians bullschidtting their way into office and then using that office to create a post-Presidential gravy train of speechifying/lucrative 'charity' work and calling in all favours granted whilst in office to lobbyists and other (in-the-know) prowlers.  
They're sick of it and are grasping at anything to tell complacent politicians that the game is up.  So they grasp at Trump, as he stands out as the only candidate who looks different to the other usual suspects.  The Republican v Democrats battle is a game of mutual survival.  Trump exposed the hypocrisy of all of them by annoying each official side of each party.
If Springsteen thinks he's a working class champion then he should admit that the system and party he backs yet again is not doing a whole lot for the working class people in the middle who are fed f**king up of the Washington kiss-ass elite doing the lobby walking and back patting to keep the Coast dwellers in their nice picket fence homes.  If Clinton truly represented hope to them, they'd vote for her.  She doesn't, because they heard all the crap before from a myriad of other conventional Democrats AND Republicans.

SecretFly wrote:If Springsteen thinks he's a working class champion then he should admit that the system and party he backs yet again is not doing a whole lot for the working class people in the middle who are fed f**king up of the Washington kiss-ass elite doing the lobby walking and back patting to keep the Coast dwellers in their nice picket fence homes.  If Clinton truly represented hope to them, they'd vote for her.  She doesn't, because they heard all the crap before from a myriad of other conventional Democrats AND Republicans.

Actually, Broooooooce did say pretty much that in an interview last week. It's just that he still thinks that the Democrats do somewhat more for those people than the Republicans, and that Trump is a conman.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You would vote for someone but of his rascist stance? Wow.

What do you think of Donald Trump supporters? What would happen if you find out your best friend was actually a Donald Trump supporter?

Nore Staat wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:You would vote for someone but of his rascist stance? Wow.

What do you think of Donald Trump supporters?  What would happen if you find out your best friend was actually a Donald Trump supporter?

I'd have him arrested under terror offence laws for the propagation of agent orange.

Can anyone explain why the Republican party allowed Donald Trump to be a candidate for the presidency nominee of the Republican party?  Donald Trump has no political experience and has never held public office at any level.  Maybe he should have been an independent candidate. Have the Republican party wasted an opportunity? Not even high level Republican politicians support Donald Trump.

They wanted to win not split the vote thinking he wouldn't make it past the primaries. This is why Corbyn still holds on a tenuous grip on his PLP, because .1% chance is better than 0. He's simply defied expectations.

Nore Staat wrote:Can anyone explain why the Republican party allowed Donald Trump to be a candidate for the presidency nominee of the Republican party?  Donald Trump has no political experience and has never held public office at any level.  Maybe he should have been an independent candidate.  Have the Republican party wasted an opportunity?  Not even high level Republican politicians support Donald Trump.

Not in any rational way, no. Maybe they're desperate, stupid or both?

Nore Staat wrote:Can anyone explain why the Republican party allowed Donald Trump to be a candidate for the presidency nominee of the Republican party?  Donald Trump has no political experience and has never held public office at any level.  Maybe he should have been an independent candidate.  Have the Republican party wasted an opportunity?  Not even high level Republican politicians support Donald Trump.

Because people want to see the world burn.

It's like voting between herpes or chlamydia really you want neither.

I had hoped Trump would learn to conduct himself in a serious and respectful manner and would tone down some of his most outlandish statements on policy. But he never did. One can only assume he is not capable of change, not capable of acting in a dignified, respectful and intelligent manner. I think his whole presidential (post primary) campaign has been a train wreck. If everything was fine with the US he wouldn't have had a chance of winning. He can't even handle a twitter account. It is comical. One could argue that there has been media bias, but it is Trump that provides them with all the ammunition.

You may not support Hillary Clinton's policies, but she has handled herself as well as could be expected, and she has demonstrated herself to be politically competent.

I think there will be three types of people that will vote for Donald Trump.  
1) Dyed in the wool Republicans.  Majority
2) Those that feel themselves to be in a desperate situation economically and are desperate for change.  Swing voters.
3) "Nationalists - Racists".  Minority.

Remember the US voted twice for a "black man" for President on a policy of "change".  These were the swing voters.  The majority are not racist.  If they are racist they must also have been racist for voting in Obama twice.

Ps: looks like a clean sweep for the Republicans. House of Representatives, Senate and Presidency. Those academics that had called the last five or more elections and their models were correct. The media were wrong. The key seems to have been jobs. The BBC interviewed some young educated Clinton supporters and they said their vision for the US was for an open border for immigrants - they wanted the US to be a land of opportunity for everyone ... and they said Trump was bad for future immigrants and that was racist. Talking to Trump supporters they focused on jobs and they discounted much of the rhetoric that the media had focused on. Andrew Neal on the BBC noted that the Democrats held the presidency for 16 out of the past 24 years.

So um yeah, he actually won

I'm honestly not that surprised.

Anywho, away to build my bunker and stock up on baked beans.

When Donald Trump first declared himself as a candidate for the Republican party presidential nominee, the odds of Trump for winning the presidency was 55 to 1.  Someone on another forum said they thought for various reasons Trump had a chance and took those odd with a £5000 bet.  Taking away taxes he has won himself £230,000.

Ah well, never underestimate the ability of poor people to vote to make themselves worse off.

I didn't think you paid taxes on gambling in the uk?

ShahenshahG wrote:I didn't think you paid taxes on gambling in the uk?

I assumed there were taxes because of the numbers he gave: 55 to 1, a £5000 bet, and £230,000 winnings. That indicates an 8% tax.

I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

Think he's underestimated it or made it up, there are no taxes on winnings in uk. You pay tax in the ticket price. Or it could be he's taken an offer from the firm he bet with and decided to play it safe.

Buckle up...

How could the experts, the commentators, the pundits get this so wrong?

Good Golly I'm Olly wrote:So um yeah, he actually won

Following Brexit, it's not a surprise. People are sick to death of the establishment & nobody is fooled by the media nowadays. Very rare to get three terms in the US & what would be the point of passing the torch from Obama to Hillary & them having no power in the Senate. Pointless.

Time to drain the swamp & bang up crooked Hillary.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
How could the experts, the commentators, the pundits get this so wrong?

Can't write off Brexit as a one off anymore. If it was a bodyblow this is a knockout to the political establishment.

Your ordinary citizen feels left behind by the globalisation money train. Time for the elected to remember their electorate because if they dont they'll vote in force.

Can probably throw Corbyn in there too, the disillusioned are turning to the extremes of each side of the spectrum