Well that is one crisis averted. Now we just have to keep Trump out of the white house and we can have another four mediocre years instead of four awful years.
Well that is one crisis averted. Now we just have to keep Trump out of the white house and we can have another four mediocre years instead of four awful years.
See, that's the problem, though. We have to also find someone who can be a mediocre president. I don't believe Hillary would achieve mediocrity at all.
Really hoping for someone good to run as a third party. Hell, now's the time for it, you have two incredibly unpopular people running.
Well that is one crisis averted. Now we just have to keep Trump out of the white house and we can have another four mediocre years instead of four awful years.
See, that's the problem, though. We have to also find someone who can be a mediocre president. I don't believe Hillary would achieve mediocrity at all.
Really hoping for someone good to run as a third party. Hell, now's the time for it, you have two incredibly unpopular people running.
Gary Johnson is the only third party candidate off the top of my head. Could the Green Party or the American Independent Party somehow squeeze in? I mean, they need at least 15% of the polls across 5 polls to even get into the Presidential debates with Trump and Clinton.
I doubt anything would convince me that Hillary cares for anything or anyone that doesn't involve enriching herself. She's so duplicitous and is so obviously coached to spit out talking points that I would have trouble believing anything she says or does isn't a staged political act.
It is funny how minus the coached bit this perfectly applies to Trump.
Trump has lost millions in licensing rights and endorsements in addition to spending his own personal wealth on the race. How is Trump enriching himself with this presidential run?
1. No I haven't. Everyone against free trade agreements knows that it allows corporations to transfer jobs overseas, but Hillary's support of the Panama free trade agreement especially highlights her desire to allow not just corporations, but private individuals to hide wealth in tax havens. Bernie Sanders predicted exactly what the Panama free trade agreement would do. So either Hillary is completely untalented as a politicians that she cannot see what the long term effects of her behavior would do or she enjoys the notion of Trillions (yes Trillions with a "T") of dollars worth in funds to be hidden from governments and people.
2. To be honest the proof would have to be really high. I doubt anything would convince me that Hillary cares for anything or anyone that doesn't involve enriching herself. She's so duplicitous and is so obviously coached to spit out talking points that I would have trouble believing anything she says or does isn't a staged political act.
It's clear you're not interested in any actual discussion on the topic. You're set in your caricature of her, evidence be damned. I bet you'd be howling if someone had the same intransigent, unsupported stance about Trump.
But I've been pretty consistent in saying that Hillary is untrustworthy, I would never support her under any circumstances, her every move is motivated by self-interest etc. You knew that my standard for Hillary appearing genuine would be incredibly high from the beginning of this exchange. I don't know what you mean about me howling but I've been fending off intransigent, unsupported bashing of Trump for a while. There's plenty of legitimate criticism about Trump so I don't see why people need to make stuff up about him.
But I've been pretty consistent in saying that Hillary is untrustworthy, I would never support her under any circumstances, her every move is motivated by self-interest etc. You knew that my standard for Hillary appearing genuine would be incredibly high from the beginning of this exchange. I don't know what you mean about me howling but I've been fending off intransigent, unsupported bashing of Trump for a while. There's plenty of legitimate criticism about Trump so I don't see why people need to make stuff up about him.
My complaint is not that you're inconsistent. My complaint is that you're consistent even in the face of evidence against your position. It's one thing to dislike Clinton, but you've taken it to a bizzaro-world extreme where you doubt her stance on issues on which she has a track record going back decades. Just because you don't trust Clinton doesn't mean you have to deny even the most obvious facts about her positions.
Let me guess - you think Hillary Clinton is a theocratic Southern nationalist, because clearly every vote she's ever cast, and every policy she's ever advocated must be the opposite of what she truly believes.
See, that's the problem, though. We have to also find someone who can be a mediocre president. I don't believe Hillary would achieve mediocrity at all.
Really hoping for someone good to run as a third party. Hell, now's the time for it, you have two incredibly unpopular people running.
When has a third party actyally accomplished much? It's Trump or Clinton, and of the two of them, Clinton is the one who will leave office without having run us straight into the dirt.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
I wonder If Republicans get a kick out of losing General Elections on purpose without ever focusing on policy issues cause that's what they seem to be really good at. John McCain losing in 2008 was understandable yet they could've picked a better candidate than Mitt Romney to go up against Barack Obama in 2012 only to repeat themselves with Donald Trump losing against Hillary Clinton in 2016.
That's one too many Gordon Gekko's running for President, they need to get with the times and stop chasing Ronald Reagan's shadow regardless of how much they hate Barack Obama's policies. Perhaps this will be a wake up call for Republicans to get their act together by passing bipartisan agreements with Congress instead of keeping the country under gridlock like they have been.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
America Bless Christ Jesus
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
Well that is one crisis averted. Now we just have to keep Trump out of the white house and we can have another four mediocre years instead of four awful years.
See, that's the problem, though. We have to also find someone who can be a mediocre president. I don't believe Hillary would achieve mediocrity at all.
Really hoping for someone good to run as a third party. Hell, now's the time for it, you have two incredibly unpopular people running.
I've been wary of Gary Johnson since he's issued a couple of statements that make me sadface. Here is the Libertarian Debate between Gary Johnson, John McAfee, and Austin Petersen. Petersen really seemed out of his depth and I liked McAfee's opening statement but his method of answering questions was annoying. Gary Johnson was a little low key but he's got the name recognition and experience as Governor that's really impressive. And I hated all their answers to illegal immigration.
Well that is one crisis averted. Now we just have to keep Trump out of the white house and we can have another four mediocre years instead of four awful years.
See, that's the problem, though. We have to also find someone who can be a mediocre president. I don't believe Hillary would achieve mediocrity at all.
Really hoping for someone good to run as a third party. Hell, now's the time for it, you have two incredibly unpopular people running.
Are there particular policies of Clinton's that you dislike? The only comparison between her and the Republican candidates I've seen is on tax policy, where she plans to tax the very rich slightly more, compared to the Republican plan of taxing the very rich substantially less.
I'd be interested to see a general election with a viable third party - I've only been paying attention to your general elections since Obama-McCain, and there hasn't been a third party with a reasonable shot in that period.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Well that is one crisis averted. Now we just have to keep Trump out of the white house and we can have another four mediocre years instead of four awful years.
See, that's the problem, though. We have to also find someone who can be a mediocre president. I don't believe Hillary would achieve mediocrity at all.
Really hoping for someone good to run as a third party. Hell, now's the time for it, you have two incredibly unpopular people running.
I'm fine with Hillary, so I'm not going to complain. Hillary vs Trump, -> Hillary has been my prediction for months, so it's no surprise to me what's happening. I'd slightly prefer Sanders as a push to shake things up a bit more hopefully and get a better sense of what exactly needs to be done because changing nothing won't help in that regard. Hilary might be the safer option though. I doubt a third party could win this one, it's too late to make enough of an impression I think. Though, if one starts to stack up, maybe.
Trump has lost millions in licensing rights and endorsements in addition to spending his own personal wealth on the race. How is Trump enriching himself with this presidential run?
Trump lies about spending his own personal wealth on his campaign. The money actually comes from his business and can be written off for taxes if he does not win the presidency. So its a zero loss game for him. Do you honestly believe one of the greediest men in the world is doing this out of some sense of altruism? Its all for his personal gain just like you complain about Hillary. They are very similar yet you prefer the bigot?
The only comparison between her and the Republican candidates I've seen is on tax policy, where she plans to tax the very rich slightly more, compared to the Republican plan of taxing the very rich substantially less.
Of the remaining candidates Hillary has the most sensible tax plan. As much as I do like Sanders his tax plan is too radical and Trump's plan will certainly bankrupt our nation over his presidency and thankfully we no longer have to worry about Cruz's substantially worse tax plan.
You keep referring to Hillary Clinton by her first name, whereas you refer to everyone else by their last names, Trump, Cruz, Kasich, etc. It's kind of unfair to Clinton. Doesn't she deserve the same berth of respect as her opponents? One might argue that calling her Hillary distinguishes her from her husband. That argument doesn't really hold up though. All three Bushes are known by their last names. So please, as a sign of respect the fact that she has the guts to run for president, call her Clinton.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
You keep referring to Hillary Clinton by her first name, whereas you refer to everyone else by their last names, Trump, Cruz, Kasich, etc. It's kind of unfair to Clinton. Doesn't she deserve the same berth of respect as her opponents? One might argue that calling her Hillary distinguishes her from her husband. That argument doesn't really hold up though. All three Bushes are known by their last names. So please, as a sign of respect the fact that she has the guts to run for president, call her Clinton.
No you misunderstand, we all like her so much we are on a first name basis with her.
But seriously we call Bernie by his first name and occasionally Donald but not always.
No you misunderstand, we all like her so much we are on a first name basis with her.
But seriously we call Bernie by his first name and occasionally Donald but not always.
Lol.
I know. It's all across the board to some extent, but I noticed it happening with her more than others.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vorthos Cartography - Check out my completed maps of Zendikar and Innistrad!
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Since I have been too busy to post for a while and the topic of the conversation has shifted, I see no point in revisiting the topic of International Law and the foundation of classical liberalism.
Over the past few pages (all I am willing to read tbh), there seems to be an amount of confusion over Trump's apparent popularity (let's not forget that he is essentially the nominee at this point--ergo he must have some popularity). Allow me then to poffer a theory regarding the same.
The simplest case for the description of this theory is with immigration.
Prior to Trump's campaign igniting the issue, illegal immigration was reserved for minor talk in impolite circles or such talk was perceived to be so, what with almost instantaneous declarations to the effect of "racist/bigot/pejorative-of-choice" at the mere mention of securing the border in any real and serious sense.
Then Trump came along and addressed the issue, tactlessly and with no clear and concise message regarding it. Yet, he earned a very vocal group of supporters. The notable point about this group is that it was sufficiently large to secure the nomination. We can conclude therefore that immigration, and his other key issues, is important to a group of persons in the nation who have, until Trump, felt as if nobody in power really cares about their issues or that they are lesser humans for caring about those issues through social shaming.
I posit that Trump's rise is a direct result of taking this politically disenfranchised group of persons and directly validating their concerns, whether or not they really are disenfranchised is irrelevant--they believe they are and vote accordingly. Oh, he does it in a bombastic way, but he has completely altered the discussion in politics from preserving Obama's legacy or overturning it to those topics which are near and dear to this group's heart. In other words, he has given complete control over political discussion to this group. I do not feel any need to expound on the implications of that.
We see the same sort of behavior in his other issues too, he takes a position which is generally balked at and runs with it. After which he is rewarded with more votes, more support, and louder constituents and opponents. The abortion thing is a good example of his attempt to use this pattern once again: take a position which is generally considered anathema and force it through. In this case it can be said to have backfired, but even then, it did a very good job of revealing the dishonesty of the mainstream pro-life movement: a group which maintains that an act is murder cannot simultaneously maintain that the perpetrator of that act should not be punished, without other issues popping up first.
In summation: Trump has addressed a group of persons who have felt historically shafted; given them the gift of control of the discussion; and continues to go through the election cycle essentially repeating this tactic on taboo subjects, or subjects which have the consensus of everyone but his supporters.
This leaves us with two possible discussion points: a long term concern and a more immediate one. The immediate concern is the precise size of this group of his as it bears the most relevance on the election. The long term concern is whether or not these issues are worth being concerned about, really. The latter should be fairly self-evident in that somebody, well-several somebodies, certainly think so. Which leaves us with the first concern.
Trump has enjoyed his widest wins in traditionally bluer states. Whether this was due to Cruz's evangelical appeal is unclear and irrelevant, the point is that Trump--in the primaries anyway--is threatening the key states of the Democrats. He only needs to win a few of those, while keeping the red states, to secure the Presidency. On the topic of the red states, it should be noted that none of them are going to vote for a socialist as defined by Merriam-Webster or another legacy candidate. These are the states that produced the Tea Party after all, which espoused laissez-faire economy models and specifically decried the effective aristocracy which has been established in the US.
To put it bluntly, if this theory is correct and this disenfranchised group is a sizable portion of the general population, which seems plausible, Trump has already won, November is just a formality.
To put it bluntly, if this theory is correct and this disenfranchised group is a sizable portion of the general population, which seems plausible, Trump has already won, November is just a formality.
I sincerely hope that you are incorrect for the sake of our nation. I don't want to have to look back ten years from now from a nation abroad as Trump adds America to his lengthy list of failures.
Trump has enjoyed his widest wins in traditionally bluer states. Whether this was due to Cruz's evangelical appeal is unclear and irrelevant, the point is that Trump--in the primaries anyway--is threatening the key states of the Democrats. He only needs to win a few of those, while keeping the red states, to secure the Presidency. On the topic of the red states, it should be noted that none of them are going to vote for a socialist as defined by Merriam-Webster or another legacy candidate. These are the states that produced the Tea Party after all, which espoused laissez-faire economy models and specifically decried the effective aristocracy which has been established in the US.
The fact that Trump beats Cruz and Kasich in blue states doesn't mean he's going to have a shot at them in the general, any more than Clinton wiping the floor with Sanders in Mississippi means she has a shot at carrying it. This analysis is ridiculous.
You keep referring to Hillary Clinton by her first name, whereas you refer to everyone else by their last names, Trump, Cruz, Kasich, etc. It's kind of unfair to Clinton. Doesn't she deserve the same berth of respect as her opponents? One might argue that calling her Hillary distinguishes her from her husband. That argument doesn't really hold up though. All three Bushes are known by their last names. So please, as a sign of respect the fact that she has the guts to run for president, call her Clinton.
There are two (in)famous Clintons. Bill and HIllary. And while some people use "Bush" interchangebly I try to differentiate between them as "Dubya" and "JEB!". I will continue to refer to her as Hillary.
Trump has enjoyed his widest wins in traditionally bluer states. Whether this was due to Cruz's evangelical appeal is unclear and irrelevant, the point is that Trump--in the primaries anyway--is threatening the key states of the Democrats. He only needs to win a few of those, while keeping the red states, to secure the Presidency. On the topic of the red states, it should be noted that none of them are going to vote for a socialist as defined by Merriam-Webster or another legacy candidate. These are the states that produced the Tea Party after all, which espoused laissez-faire economy models and specifically decried the effective aristocracy which has been established in the US.
The fact that Trump beats Cruz and Kasich in blue states doesn't mean he's going to have a shot at them in the general, any more than Clinton wiping the floor with Sanders in Mississippi means she has a shot at carrying it. This analysis is ridiculous.
But one can make inferences from Purple states with Open primaries and see the results there. While Trump destroyed the opposition in NH, keep in mind that Bernie destroyed her there as well. He beat her so badly there that there was talk that she was almost knocked out of the race.
There's also Indiana where both Trump and Sanders did well. Most people won't call Indiana a "purple" state but it's worth noting that, like in New Hampshire, Trump and Bernie did well.
Michigan allowed Bernie Sanders to clear a 22 point (or was it 34) polling gap overnight and win in that state. Trump won Michigan as well. Purple state with open primary.
The counter to these are Ohio and Virginia. Both are purple states with OPEN primaries. Hillary Clinton defeated Bernie Sanders in these two states. Trump won Virginia and Kasich won Ohio. It's unlikely that Trump can turn Virginia red. The concentration of voters in the DC area suberbs are wildly establishment. But Trump can swing Ohio. It'll be a tough sell.
Sanders wasn't entirely incorrect when he was complaining in New York that independents weren't allowed to vote. Independents have not been going to Hillary in these elections. They've been going to Sanders. If Trump can secure more of these independent voters in swing states then he will be president.
p.s. I don't know why pundits keep calling Wisconsin a swing state. Pennsylvania is more likely to swing red then Wisconsin.
edit...
Among Democratic party voters...
Independents went 71% to Sanders in Michigan.
Independents went 73% to Sanders in New Hampshire.
Independents went 66% to Sanders in Ohio.
Independents went 58% to Sanders in Virginia.
Hillary Clinton has a millstone around her neck for being about as establishment as she can be. She won't have the DNC doing unfair favors on her behalf during the general election.
But one can make inferences from Purple states with Open primaries and see the results there. While Trump destroyed the opposition in NH, keep in mind that Bernie destroyed her there as well. He beat her so badly there that there was talk that she was almost knocked out of the race.
There's also Indiana where both Trump and Sanders did well. Most people won't call Indiana a "purple" state but it's worth noting that, like in New Hampshire, Trump and Bernie did well.
Michigan allowed Bernie Sanders to clear a 22 point (or was it 34) polling gap and win in that state. Trump won Michigan as well. Purple state with open primary.
The counter to these are Ohio and Virginia. Both are purple states with OPEN primaries. Hillary Clinton defeated Bernie Sanders in these two states. Trump won Virginia and Kasich won Ohio. It's unlikely that Trump can turn Virginia red. The concentration of voters in the DC area suberbs are wildly establishment. But Trump can swing Ohio. It'll be a tough sell.
Sanders wasn't entirely incorrect when he was complaining in New York that independents weren't allowed to vote. Independents have not been going to Hillary in these elections. They've been going to Sanders. If Trump can secure more of these independent voters in swing states then he will be president.
p.s. I don't know why pundits keep calling Wisconsin a swing state. Pennsylvania is more likely to swing red then Wisconsin.
edit...
Among Democratic party voters...
Independents went 71% to Sanders in Michigan.
Independents went 73% to Sanders in New Hampshire.
Independents went 66% to Sanders in Ohio.
Independents went 58% to Sanders in Virginia.
Hillary Clinton has a millstone around her neck for being about as establishment as she can be. She won't have the DNC doing unfair favors on her behalf during the general election.
Clinton lost Michigan by a huge margin to Sanders, but Trump vs Clinton polls in the state are double digits for Clinton. The same is true in New Hampshire, where the most recent poll I can find has Clinton at +19 over Trump. Virginia is also double digits to Clinton. So is Pennsylvania (although an FOX poll had it tied - a pretty big outlier from the other polling). So is Wisconsin. Ohio is the only one among the bunch that seems remotely in play for Trump based on the current numbers, and even there he's trailing.
I don't really buy an analysis that says primary numbers are meaningful but doesn't look at the actual polling in the states. If there is some possibility for Trump to take these states, it has to rely on future developments in the campaign. Note also that Trump's path to victory has to pass through some of these states - there's simply not enough electoral votes left over if he loses them, unless he somehow flips something even more solidly blue.
You keep referring to Hillary Clinton by her first name, whereas you refer to everyone else by their last names, Trump, Cruz, Kasich, etc. It's kind of unfair to Clinton. Doesn't she deserve the same berth of respect as her opponents? One might argue that calling her Hillary distinguishes her from her husband. That argument doesn't really hold up though. All three Bushes are known by their last names. So please, as a sign of respect the fact that she has the guts to run for president, call her Clinton.
There are two (in)famous Clintons. Bill and HIllary. And while some people use "Bush" interchangebly I try to differentiate between them as "Dubya" and "JEB!". I will continue to refer to her as Hillary.
Yeah, this. In most situations, a last name sets someone apart more than a first name. However, when family names start overlapping such as with the Bushes or the Clintons, you need to distinguish them in some other way.
That doesn't necessarily have to be by first name (see, for example, "JFK"), but using the person's first name is one way to do it.
I figure if her campaign slogan is "Hillary for America" and her icon is an H with an arrow, and her bumper stickers say "Hillary for President" then it's acceptable to call her Hillary.
The large quantities of qualifications are there for a reason you guys.
3479, most of the point of the theory is to describe the implicit strategy Trump seems to be using. Immigration is simply the easiest one of the issues he has made relevant to pick apart, probably because it was his first. His position and issue hopping makes sense, if we consider them as broad hot-button issues likely to resonate with a number of voters in the primary.
I guess a better way to phrase this theory would be as an algorithm of sorts:
1. find an issue which has a sharp division in the political positions
2. loudly and ridiculously defend the politically incorrect option
3. the disenfranchised voters perceive that their concerns are now validated by an authority
4. Understandably, they rush to defend and support the authority which did the validating
5. Repeat as needed
This does operate on the premise that these tribes of voters care about a singular issue to exclusion, a bit silly--really, but it is undeniable that some issues are more important than others. Which brings us to the clincher: these important issues are unique to differing tribes, by stoking the issue one tribe cares most about, he can "issue-hop" to appeal to different tribes without meaningfully alienating the majority of any other particular tribe.
If so, we would expect different Trump supporters to defend some of his positions more forcefully than others and dismiss his inconsistencies with a hand wave. Which can easily be demonstrated from our, admittedly small, sample here on this very thread.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Really hoping for someone good to run as a third party. Hell, now's the time for it, you have two incredibly unpopular people running.
Gary Johnson is the only third party candidate off the top of my head. Could the Green Party or the American Independent Party somehow squeeze in? I mean, they need at least 15% of the polls across 5 polls to even get into the Presidential debates with Trump and Clinton.
Trump has lost millions in licensing rights and endorsements in addition to spending his own personal wealth on the race. How is Trump enriching himself with this presidential run?
It's no loss. I never considered the conservative movement to be a worthwhile ideology anyway.
But I've been pretty consistent in saying that Hillary is untrustworthy, I would never support her under any circumstances, her every move is motivated by self-interest etc. You knew that my standard for Hillary appearing genuine would be incredibly high from the beginning of this exchange. I don't know what you mean about me howling but I've been fending off intransigent, unsupported bashing of Trump for a while. There's plenty of legitimate criticism about Trump so I don't see why people need to make stuff up about him.
My complaint is not that you're inconsistent. My complaint is that you're consistent even in the face of evidence against your position. It's one thing to dislike Clinton, but you've taken it to a bizzaro-world extreme where you doubt her stance on issues on which she has a track record going back decades. Just because you don't trust Clinton doesn't mean you have to deny even the most obvious facts about her positions.
Let me guess - you think Hillary Clinton is a theocratic Southern nationalist, because clearly every vote she's ever cast, and every policy she's ever advocated must be the opposite of what she truly believes.
When has a third party actyally accomplished much? It's Trump or Clinton, and of the two of them, Clinton is the one who will leave office without having run us straight into the dirt.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
That's one too many Gordon Gekko's running for President, they need to get with the times and stop chasing Ronald Reagan's shadow regardless of how much they hate Barack Obama's policies. Perhaps this will be a wake up call for Republicans to get their act together by passing bipartisan agreements with Congress instead of keeping the country under gridlock like they have been.
"Restriction breeds creativity." - Sheldon Menery on EDH / Commander in Magic: The Gathering
"Cancel Culture is the real reason why everyone's not allowed to have nice things anymore." - Anonymous
"For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul?" - Mark 8:36
"Most men and women will grow up to love their servitude and will never dream of revolution." - Aldous Huxley, Brave New World
"Every life decision is always a risk / reward proposition." - Sanjay Gupta
I've been wary of Gary Johnson since he's issued a couple of statements that make me sadface. Here is the Libertarian Debate between Gary Johnson, John McAfee, and Austin Petersen. Petersen really seemed out of his depth and I liked McAfee's opening statement but his method of answering questions was annoying. Gary Johnson was a little low key but he's got the name recognition and experience as Governor that's really impressive. And I hated all their answers to illegal immigration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QQPWiCgAjDo
I'd be interested to see a general election with a viable third party - I've only been paying attention to your general elections since Obama-McCain, and there hasn't been a third party with a reasonable shot in that period.
I'm fine with Hillary, so I'm not going to complain. Hillary vs Trump, -> Hillary has been my prediction for months, so it's no surprise to me what's happening. I'd slightly prefer Sanders as a push to shake things up a bit more hopefully and get a better sense of what exactly needs to be done because changing nothing won't help in that regard. Hilary might be the safer option though. I doubt a third party could win this one, it's too late to make enough of an impression I think. Though, if one starts to stack up, maybe.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Of the remaining candidates Hillary has the most sensible tax plan. As much as I do like Sanders his tax plan is too radical and Trump's plan will certainly bankrupt our nation over his presidency and thankfully we no longer have to worry about Cruz's substantially worse tax plan.
Fully-powered 600-Card "Dream Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/dreamcube
450-Card "Artificer's Cube" https://cubecobra.com/cube/list/artificer
Cubing in Indianapolis...send me a PM!!
You keep referring to Hillary Clinton by her first name, whereas you refer to everyone else by their last names, Trump, Cruz, Kasich, etc. It's kind of unfair to Clinton. Doesn't she deserve the same berth of respect as her opponents? One might argue that calling her Hillary distinguishes her from her husband. That argument doesn't really hold up though. All three Bushes are known by their last names. So please, as a sign of respect the fact that she has the guts to run for president, call her Clinton.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
But seriously we call Bernie by his first name and occasionally Donald but not always.
Lol.
I know. It's all across the board to some extent, but I noticed it happening with her more than others.
"You say 'learn from history,' but that does not mean 'learn the same bull***** the people in history learned alongside phrenology and alchemy.'" - The Blinking Spirit
Over the past few pages (all I am willing to read tbh), there seems to be an amount of confusion over Trump's apparent popularity (let's not forget that he is essentially the nominee at this point--ergo he must have some popularity). Allow me then to poffer a theory regarding the same.
The simplest case for the description of this theory is with immigration.
Prior to Trump's campaign igniting the issue, illegal immigration was reserved for minor talk in impolite circles or such talk was perceived to be so, what with almost instantaneous declarations to the effect of "racist/bigot/pejorative-of-choice" at the mere mention of securing the border in any real and serious sense.
Then Trump came along and addressed the issue, tactlessly and with no clear and concise message regarding it. Yet, he earned a very vocal group of supporters. The notable point about this group is that it was sufficiently large to secure the nomination. We can conclude therefore that immigration, and his other key issues, is important to a group of persons in the nation who have, until Trump, felt as if nobody in power really cares about their issues or that they are lesser humans for caring about those issues through social shaming.
I posit that Trump's rise is a direct result of taking this politically disenfranchised group of persons and directly validating their concerns, whether or not they really are disenfranchised is irrelevant--they believe they are and vote accordingly. Oh, he does it in a bombastic way, but he has completely altered the discussion in politics from preserving Obama's legacy or overturning it to those topics which are near and dear to this group's heart. In other words, he has given complete control over political discussion to this group. I do not feel any need to expound on the implications of that.
We see the same sort of behavior in his other issues too, he takes a position which is generally balked at and runs with it. After which he is rewarded with more votes, more support, and louder constituents and opponents. The abortion thing is a good example of his attempt to use this pattern once again: take a position which is generally considered anathema and force it through. In this case it can be said to have backfired, but even then, it did a very good job of revealing the dishonesty of the mainstream pro-life movement: a group which maintains that an act is murder cannot simultaneously maintain that the perpetrator of that act should not be punished, without other issues popping up first.
In summation: Trump has addressed a group of persons who have felt historically shafted; given them the gift of control of the discussion; and continues to go through the election cycle essentially repeating this tactic on taboo subjects, or subjects which have the consensus of everyone but his supporters.
This leaves us with two possible discussion points: a long term concern and a more immediate one. The immediate concern is the precise size of this group of his as it bears the most relevance on the election. The long term concern is whether or not these issues are worth being concerned about, really. The latter should be fairly self-evident in that somebody, well-several somebodies, certainly think so. Which leaves us with the first concern.
Trump has enjoyed his widest wins in traditionally bluer states. Whether this was due to Cruz's evangelical appeal is unclear and irrelevant, the point is that Trump--in the primaries anyway--is threatening the key states of the Democrats. He only needs to win a few of those, while keeping the red states, to secure the Presidency. On the topic of the red states, it should be noted that none of them are going to vote for a socialist as defined by Merriam-Webster or another legacy candidate. These are the states that produced the Tea Party after all, which espoused laissez-faire economy models and specifically decried the effective aristocracy which has been established in the US.
To put it bluntly, if this theory is correct and this disenfranchised group is a sizable portion of the general population, which seems plausible, Trump has already won, November is just a formality.
The fact that Trump beats Cruz and Kasich in blue states doesn't mean he's going to have a shot at them in the general, any more than Clinton wiping the floor with Sanders in Mississippi means she has a shot at carrying it. This analysis is ridiculous.
There are two (in)famous Clintons. Bill and HIllary. And while some people use "Bush" interchangebly I try to differentiate between them as "Dubya" and "JEB!". I will continue to refer to her as Hillary.
But one can make inferences from Purple states with Open primaries and see the results there. While Trump destroyed the opposition in NH, keep in mind that Bernie destroyed her there as well. He beat her so badly there that there was talk that she was almost knocked out of the race.
There's also Indiana where both Trump and Sanders did well. Most people won't call Indiana a "purple" state but it's worth noting that, like in New Hampshire, Trump and Bernie did well.
Michigan allowed Bernie Sanders to clear a 22 point (or was it 34) polling gap overnight and win in that state. Trump won Michigan as well. Purple state with open primary.
The counter to these are Ohio and Virginia. Both are purple states with OPEN primaries. Hillary Clinton defeated Bernie Sanders in these two states. Trump won Virginia and Kasich won Ohio. It's unlikely that Trump can turn Virginia red. The concentration of voters in the DC area suberbs are wildly establishment. But Trump can swing Ohio. It'll be a tough sell.
Sanders wasn't entirely incorrect when he was complaining in New York that independents weren't allowed to vote. Independents have not been going to Hillary in these elections. They've been going to Sanders. If Trump can secure more of these independent voters in swing states then he will be president.
p.s. I don't know why pundits keep calling Wisconsin a swing state. Pennsylvania is more likely to swing red then Wisconsin.
edit...
Among Democratic party voters...
Independents went 71% to Sanders in Michigan.
Independents went 73% to Sanders in New Hampshire.
Independents went 66% to Sanders in Ohio.
Independents went 58% to Sanders in Virginia.
Hillary Clinton has a millstone around her neck for being about as establishment as she can be. She won't have the DNC doing unfair favors on her behalf during the general election.
Clinton lost Michigan by a huge margin to Sanders, but Trump vs Clinton polls in the state are double digits for Clinton. The same is true in New Hampshire, where the most recent poll I can find has Clinton at +19 over Trump. Virginia is also double digits to Clinton. So is Pennsylvania (although an FOX poll had it tied - a pretty big outlier from the other polling). So is Wisconsin. Ohio is the only one among the bunch that seems remotely in play for Trump based on the current numbers, and even there he's trailing.
I don't really buy an analysis that says primary numbers are meaningful but doesn't look at the actual polling in the states. If there is some possibility for Trump to take these states, it has to rely on future developments in the campaign. Note also that Trump's path to victory has to pass through some of these states - there's simply not enough electoral votes left over if he loses them, unless he somehow flips something even more solidly blue.
That doesn't necessarily have to be by first name (see, for example, "JFK"), but using the person's first name is one way to do it.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
3479, most of the point of the theory is to describe the implicit strategy Trump seems to be using. Immigration is simply the easiest one of the issues he has made relevant to pick apart, probably because it was his first. His position and issue hopping makes sense, if we consider them as broad hot-button issues likely to resonate with a number of voters in the primary.
I guess a better way to phrase this theory would be as an algorithm of sorts:
1. find an issue which has a sharp division in the political positions
2. loudly and ridiculously defend the politically incorrect option
3. the disenfranchised voters perceive that their concerns are now validated by an authority
4. Understandably, they rush to defend and support the authority which did the validating
5. Repeat as needed
This does operate on the premise that these tribes of voters care about a singular issue to exclusion, a bit silly--really, but it is undeniable that some issues are more important than others. Which brings us to the clincher: these important issues are unique to differing tribes, by stoking the issue one tribe cares most about, he can "issue-hop" to appeal to different tribes without meaningfully alienating the majority of any other particular tribe.
If so, we would expect different Trump supporters to defend some of his positions more forcefully than others and dismiss his inconsistencies with a hand wave. Which can easily be demonstrated from our, admittedly small, sample here on this very thread.