2016 US Presidential Elections Thread [Trump Wins]

[Platinum Lucario]

As for me, it would be really nice to see a first female president in the US. I know I live in Australia, but I have been looking at the political system in the US, as well as it's political parties (since I'm really into politics and all).

At the same time, I would've also wished to see Bernie Sanders be the last remaining candidate of the Democratic Party. But there is one thing I am aware of in the US political system: The lack of ballot access for minor/3rd party candidates (which I haven't seen any success, or I might have missed something).

Anyways, I just hope things head in a positive direction. There's still about 4 months before the US elections. And remember, it's not just president that people are voting for, it's also their candidates for the House of Representatives (and the Senate, depending on the area). If I was a US citizen and was voting in this election, I would've been voting for a Green Party candidate if there is one available, but if not... then I'd have to pick the one closest to Green Party's policies, which would be a Democratic Party candidate. But that's just basically my opinion though, and I know everyone's different, and that's okay, I respect that.

 

[Netto Azure]

Well Sanders just said he's voting for Clinton. I seriously think the Brexit vote is what forced the issue.

And considering the 2000 elections I wouldn't be surprised.

 

[Ivysaur]

According to PPP, Giant Meteor 2016 would do better than Gary Johnson in a three-way race against Clinton and Trump, hitting an impressive 13%, almost enough to make it to the debates. 7% are not sure.

Anyway, Nate Silver, who called every state correctly in 2012, has launched his 2016 projection site based on poll results, economic data and historic election outcomes: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/ Clinton is currently winning 80%/20% in odds of winning the election. Keep track of how their chances evolve as the campaign develops.

 

[Esper]

Yeah, but when Trump took a temporary lead in the polls in May Nate Silver was all "polls fluctuate all the time, don't worry about them" [here] so don't be complacent because he makes it look like Clinton has it in the bag. She doesn't and Trump could easily win just like how something as unthinkable as Brexit happened and surprised everyone. It's much easier to get motivated to vote when you're basically voting with your hate for something, and Trump has a lot more hateful people supporting him.

 

[Ivysaur]

Yeah, but when Trump took a temporary lead in the polls in May Nate Silver was all "polls fluctuate all the time, don't worry about them" [here] so don't be complacent because he makes it look like Clinton has it in the bag. She doesn't and Trump could easily win just like how something as unthinkable as Brexit happened and surprised everyone. It's much easier to get motivated to vote when you're basically voting with your hate for something, and Trump has a lot more hateful people supporting him.

Keep track of how their chances evolve as the campaign develops.

That's precisely what I said. This tracker aggregates polls and even softens them even more with "state fundamentals" (demographics, how it voted in the past, economical data) so it should be even less affected by random polling fluctuation. And yes, she may have it in the bag on July 1st but the elections aren't today, hence why "keep track of it".

And polls suggested Brexit was perfectly possible and polls got Trump's primary win spot-on from the start, even when all the pundits -including Silver- were saying "that's unpossible!", so polls are worth keeping an eye on. Not "THIS latest poll", but all of them as a group.

 

[Entermaid]

The email scandal is not going away any time soon. Comey stated that Clinton's conduct with the email server demonstrated gross negligence along with the recommendation not to indict. During the primary process Clinton's statements (1. didn't send classified information, only sent personal emails; 2. only used one device; and 3. provided all emails to the FBI) and the findings of the FBI investigation presented by Comey which refute her testimony provides evidence for both incompetence as well as deception -- just not enough to demonstrate treasonous willful intent, which seems to be Comey's standard for pursuing indictment. The burden of proving treasonous willful intent is so high and unprecedented. This precedent is dangerous to standards of ethics and accountability.

The email server will become the main attraction of the general election debates, and in the many battleground states (about 8) with polls in the margin of error the electoral impacts cannot be ignored. Not to mention, wikileaks has released more emails from the private server, including over 1200 related to the war in Iraq -- not personal emails. This again demonstrates that Clinton either mishandle emails or deleted the emails willfully during the investigation. Though, 1200 emails related to the Iraq war seems to be less of a case of negligence than intent.

For perspective, the general election polls are really useless, instead look at the battleground states. These are all nailbiters; Trump would almost necessarily secure the presidency if he clenches 5 of them -- especially Florida. It's insane that there are people who still act as if Clinton has it in the bag rather than understand that the lead is narrow, tenuous, and can be overturned after a single debate and/or if the pollsters are underestimating/overestimating turnout of voting demographics.

This is why we needed a candidate like Bernie to take down Trump; instead Clinton's demonstrated corruption will only distract the public from Trump's nazi-like vision. The only way to combat Trump's vision is with a candidate of a vision of their own -- not someone driven by public opinion and constantly flips the script when it comes to black (mass incarceration, black-on-black crime myth, super-predatory), women (lobbied to abolish welfare "TANF" which leads to less autonomy to single mothers, especially women of color), Hispanic (tough anti-immigration policy record..i.e. the Clinton Administration), LGBT (lobbied for DOMA and for decades has engaged in dehumanizing religious and "traditions" rhetoric) lives when politically expedient. The reason being, general elections are largely determined by who turns out, and disenfranchised groups and progressives (equivalent to "the moderate left" relative to much of Europe) are less likely to support candidates with a record of bigotry, even if it is in the pursuit of combating an even bigger bigot. It does not help when we have to support a corrupt bigot in order to be politically strategic; at some point we lose faith in the political process -- and we do not vote as a consequence.

Who knows, provided the unprecedented disdain of both candidates it may be the perfect storm for a third party. I would love to see american politics shift from neo-conservative vs neo liberal paternalism to libertarianism vs socialism. The latter deals with two tensions that are foundational to governance -- negative rights and positive rights. Negative rights provide individuals freedoms to live their lives with self-determination rather than the government limiting personal choices, whereas, positive rights provide social benefits that allow for individuals to live the "good life". We need negative rights to ensure we have autonomy, but also autonomy only exists when we take collective-action, for instance a single payer plan. Both of these ideologies need to coexist in order for freedom to be maximized. Our government only deals with the "pragmatic" navigation of transient and fashionable concerns through appealing to an existing system of dogmas and traditions (white supremacy, christianity, heternomativity, patriarchy. ect). That is false consciousness. Pragmatism only works if in the realm of a philosophical tension such as negative and positive rights rather than an ideological free-for-all determined by those who have the capital to determine meaning for us.

 

[Ivysaur]

Two things about swing state polls:

a) Clinton is... doing better than Obama!

and b) Trump is... doing horribly at red states. He's losing freaking Kansas!

So, for Trump to overcome this, he'd need to either make massive hordes of white voters turn out (which is becoming increasingly harder)- also it must be non-college graduates, since college graduates are moving into the Democratic camp for the first time in half a century. And he must do that despite being Donald Trump. He's not a professional politician who can put on a moderate mask for the campaign- he'll praise Saddam Hussein in public for murdering detainees without a trial if he wants to, and virtually all voters know who he is and what his positions are already, so a simple "Trump 2.0" won't cut it.

I'm not going to say that "Clinton has this in the bag", but Trump needs something else other than a good debate to win. Either he becomes a different person altogether, or the Democrats collapse in a sea of infighting, or I don't see how he wins. I really don't.

The email server will become the main attraction of the general election debates

Will it? Trump has managed to keep the media talking about his possible anti-semitism and his praise for middle-eastern dictators in the week that should have been all about Clinton. I still can't believe how he keeps doing this. I expect the debates to be 75% about Trump more than anything.

 

[Mana1]

After my own country's recent attempt at democracy I sincerely hope that the polls that Went is quoting come true. Although its best not to assume its any clear victory, we learn that lesson the hard way ;-;.

 

[Sir Codin]

I can't really agree that people voting third party aren't "thinking about their future." It really does often come about because some of these voters do believe these candidates have better things in store for their future than the mainstream ones.

In any case, I also think the whole attitude to voting to win instead of voting based on your principles just ensures that we will never move past the Democrat/Republican gridlock our country is in and never truly give other party ideals (pure Socialism, libertarianism, Green, etc) a real chance at bringing their own methods to the table. Right now the best that anyone can hope for is infiltrating a mainstream party and putting your ideas forward there, but even that won't guarantee success (Ron Paul for classic liberalism and Bernie Sanders for social democracy are two big recent examples of this failure).

 

[Sir Codin]

I apologize if I created this misinterpretation or impression, voting third party candidates based on principle (if you really don't agree with the primary parties) is fine if you decide to go that route, but I feel that, with how the US political system generally is, it's unlikely that third party candidates are ever really going to gain much steam or mommentum for the foreseeable future due to media exposure of Democratic/Republican candidates.



I will absolutely give credit where credit is due in the case of Bernie Sanders and say that, while he may not have secured the nomination again Clinton, he has had a huge influence in politics and will most likely be an influence for many liberal Democrats in the years to come. I don't think that counts as a failure in my book. :P

The point I'm trying to make though is that disregard for third parties because you think that , in the current political climate, they're never going to win is by definition a Catch-22.

The current system gives so much credit to Dems and Repubs that the general public doesn't give credence to third parties because media doesn't focus on them, which means we're just going to continue having a system where third parties won't gain much steam and momentum because the public won't give them a chance. And the most common excuse is "they're not realistically going to win."

If you keep thinking third parties are never going to get off the ground, that just ensures they never will. A self-fulfilling prophesy, I believe is what the term is.

 

[Ivysaur]

The problem is that the US electoral system, by virtue of being a Winner-takes-all in all levels, with a single round of voting, effectively makes it impossible for a third party to appear. And when third parties do appear, they a) end up being absorbed by one of the two leading parties [Southern Democrats > Republicans]; b) end up replacing one of the two main parties, so the two-party system is recreated [Whigs > Republicans] or c) become hopeless also-rans. Why? Because, by definition, if you aren't voting for (big party A), you are implicitly allowing (big party B) to win. And most people would rather not give a win to someone who is radically opposed to them than "wasting" their vote on someone who might represent them a bit better just to prove a point, so lots of "lesser evil" happens.

And since this electoral system is stuck in the Constitution, either someone changes it to make it more representative (proportional and all), or your only options are killing one of the two main parties and replacing it, or infiltrating it a la Paul/Sanders.

 

[Kanzler]

https://fightfor15.org/democratic-party-adopts-15-national-minimum-wage-to-party-platform/

It?s official: the Democratic Party has adopted a call to raise the minimum wage to $15 per hour as part of their party platform heading into the 2016 election season.

Terrence Wise, a Kansas City, Mo. McDonald?s and Burger King worker and member of the National Organizing Committee of the Fight for $15, had this to say about the the recent decision:

?The Democratic Party?s move shows a growing understanding that $15 an hour is what American workers everywhere need to survive and support their families. When fast-food workers first went on strike three years ago in New York City, most people gave them no shot to win. But the movement caught on in every corner of the country and big wage increases are now spreading from coast to coast. By joining together, speaking out and going on strike, we?re changing the politics of the country. And we?re going to keep on fighting until every underpaid worker in this country wins $15 and a union.?

According to other sources this $15 would be indexed to inflation as well. Sounds like progress is being made. I'm curious about the final language concerning the TPP that would end up in the platform. At this point I'll be happy with any change that is made.

 

[Entermaid]

Two things about swing state polls:

and b) Trump is... doing horribly at red states. He's losing freaking Kansas!

No. Not sure where you are getting this misinformation. Kansas is a red state that supports Trump. It's just weird is all since this is the only scientific poll and it is clearly leaning Trump. Where is your data coming from? Zogby? That's an unreliable source with inaccurate sampling that RCP does not include -- mind you RCP uses liberal and conservative pollsters alike so long as they uphold standards and predictive power. Please do research.

The only scientific poll shows Trump ahead. It's not up-to-date because it is considered a gimme state for him; plus low-delegate count.

a) Clinton is... doing better than Obama!

Okay, we need to back up before throwing up data. The data you have provided are OUTCOMES, not PROJECTIONS. Projections require estimating voter turn-out. Projections have margins of error around 3-4% (anything within that is a statistical "tie" based off sampling errors). Most of the swing states PROJECTIONS are "Statistical" ties -- not the outcomes listed. Not to mention, we are comparing apples to oranges when we look at elections results and projections PRIOR to the nomination process. President Obama was not doing as well going into October, and eventually gained some momentum after a back and forth to secure the state of Florida...among other state. Also, pollsters underestimated African-American voter turnout.

Example of 2012 General Election Projections

Again, this is just another case of misinformation that underestimates the Trump threat.


With that in mind:
Nearly all of these (except Georgia) are within the margin of error, which means that the "true value" of the result is 95% likely to be 3.5 points higher or lower than the number provided -- thus it's pretty close despite what the popular vote may indicate.

 

[Ivysaur]

No. Not sure where you are getting this misinformation.

The source was in the pics: it's FiveThirtyEight's polling averages. You know, Nate Silver's website. The guy who called all 50 states + DC in 2012? That one.

Perhaps, in fact, your problem is that you focus too hard on RCP, which only quotes naked polls, without adjusting for past accuracy or house effects. Because RCP's naked averages showed "a dead heat!" "statistical ties everywhere!", but yet, by adjusting for the pollsters' known outcomes, he called every state just right. And he even called the popular vote more accurately than RCP did!

As by the numbers I was quoting, I'll link you to the article so you can read it: https://fivethirtyeight.com/feature...-national-polls-basically-say-the-same-thing/

I'll concede that things change during the campaign, and that random poll outliers can make it seem like a race is far closer than it is (and we the media loooooove a good "X poll says it's a tie!" headline even if it has nothing to do with reality). But there is such a thing as being confident that X candidate is leading in Y state, even if they are doing so by a number under the margin of error.

Whatever the case, there are my sources, you can check them, he was 100% right in 2012 and I trust his judgement. After all, he's just working with the same public polls available to everyone, like RCP. What you do with them is what makes all the difference, and if you want to look at them from the "dead heat" narrative, be my guest. I'll stick to the "of course Trump can obviously still win but signals say Clinton is leading rather comfortably for now" line.

 

[Jiggling Jigglypuff]

I am not old enough to vote for either Clinton or Trump and actually I am pretty happy about that. My parents was talking to me and my older sister who is 18 and will be old enough to vote in this election and my parents said to us that this Presidential Election has been a complete circus and nothing they have seen in previous ones comes even close to the crap that has occurred in both of these campaigns and there supporters. They said to my older sister we would never sway you to vote our way in any election, but this election we actually can't because we have no clue who we are going to vote for yet.

 

[Netto Azure]

Well Sanders just officially endorsed Clinton.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/13/us/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton.html

Time to beat The Donald :P

 

[Ivysaur]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-06-09/one-american-political-party-actually-works

This summarizes very well how the US political system stands right now.

 

[Biogoji]

Not saying i support trump but at least he didn't cheat his way into getting the nomination like hillary did.

 

[Biogoji]

https://observer.com/2016/06/careful-what-you-wish-for-hillarys-allies-rigged-the-primaries/

https://thefreethoughtproject.com/e...ging-dnc-primaries-derail-clinton-nomination/

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/tony...ession-can-stop-bernie-sanders_b_9780128.html

 

[«Chuckles»]

It's a really interesting election this one. I've personally always stood with Trump and I have my reasons that I don't want to get into since today I've just seen Papa Sanders endorsing Hillary Clinton which is a shame, I thought he had more integrity than that. I was really really hoping for a Trump Vs. Sanders election because the way I see it they both are there for the people. I believe in both of them that they have the best intentions at heart and it's what the people deserve I guess. Two candidates that aren't even establishment backed that would both serve as a real middle finger to American Politics and Big Donorship. I'm unsure if Bernie supporters will really support Hillary since she's a bit of a demagogue and Bernies supporters have been shown to be quite die hard with some very violent protests. These people believe in Bernie and it's interesting to see how divided they will be given to Bernie "selling out".