Donald Trump

[Craig]

Originally Posted by polarbear

I'm not convinced the Republicans picked the worst candidate. Let's be honest, most of them are really Democrats masquerading as conservatives. The interest groups they serve are the same, and they all worship at the same altar of money. Which explains, in simplest terms, why the economic and social policies served the needs of those in a position to wield the most influence for the past 20+ years. They bought off the poor... and the rest of us are footing the bill.

But lets keep it simple. Ten people in a room going to elect a leader. Four want the Red. Three want the Yellow. Two decide, in good conscience, to vote for Blue. One abstains because "Pie" wasn't a choice on the ballot.

Red wins- done. Not because Red had the most votes, but because the slow kids in the room didn't understand the part about "one of the two top choices is going to win."

Really as simple as that.

The real "slow kids" are the ones that supported an unelectable candidate, because they wanted to piss off "the establishment" (by the way, they're in the minority, that's why he's going to lose). It's all or nothing with them. Congrats, they're going to get 100% of nothing. That's not my fault.

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Craig

The real "slow kids" are the ones that supported an unelectable candidate, because they wanted to piss off "the establishment" (by the way, they're in the minority, that's why he's going to lose). It's all or nothing with them. Congrats, they're going to get 100% of nothing. That's not my fault.

It was a surprise when Reagan beat Carter. The question is, will enough people who are tired of PC "safe spaces," professional victims, us being a whipping boy internationally, etc. come out and vote? I think Trump can bring in lots of the Reagan Democrats. The polarization of the US has to have some of them thinking, "what the Hell do I have in common with xxxxx?" Trade unionists, for example. When they see blm and other victim groups demanding more taxpayer handouts, I'm hoping they think, "shit, I WORK for a living, and I'm a bad guy and expected to support that?"

A major Muslim attack on the US could swing the election for Trump. More blm violence like we saw in Dallas could do the same thing.

Don't count Trump out. If ever there was a year where a populist could get elected, it's this year. Keep in mind, this is coming from a confirmed Libertarian who has never voted R for president before.

By the way, I said the same thing every time I voted. Not my fault people didn't vote for Perot back when the national debt was a mere $ 4T. Not my fault when McAmnesty was chosen as the nominee.

[Craig]

The electoral college counts are not in Trump's favor. The blue states have the advantage. That could have been overcome with a good R candidate, as unpopular as Billary is, even with D's. As it is, we have two equally unpopular candidates. That means the blue states will prevail in the end. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. My state will be red, so it doesn't matter that I'm voting the way I am.

[polarbear]

Originally Posted by Craig

The electoral college counts are not in Trump's favor. The blue states have the advantage. That could have been overcome with a good R candidate, as unpopular as Billary is, even with D's. As it is, we have two equally unpopular candidates. That means the blue states will prevail in the end. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. My state will be red, so it doesn't matter that I'm voting the way I am.

If this election year has taught us nothing else, it's shown that the usual assumptions don't apply. I think it'll be a long and interesting road from here to November.

[lspencer534]

Originally Posted by polarbear

If this election year has taught us nothing else, it's shown that the usual assumptions don't apply. I think it'll be a long and interesting road from here to November.

"Everything that so many of us have learned by observing politics for the last 30, 40 years is going to be challenged this cycle," said Ari Fleischer, former press secretary to George W. Bush. "Don't be surprised if Donald Trump is sitting in the Oval Office on January 20th."

Hillary Clinton has never run against a candidate with ten arms and eight legs like Donald Trump. He's going to be all over her. She couldn't figure out how to run against a skinny, first-term, U.S. senator named Hussein ... much less this political raptor, which is what Donald Trump is.

Hillary Clinton’s double-digit lead in national polls has evaporated and panic is beginning to set in. Polls now show Donald Trump ahead of Clinton, or at worst only a few points behind. During the insanity of the Republican primary, it was easy for them to believe that Trump could never be president—that in a general election, mainstream voters would regard him as an absurdity. But Clinton remains a shaky candidate with historically high negatives, an email scandal that people will remember although she escaped criminal prosecution, and a stubborn primary opponent whose supporters may yet become a midsummer nightmare in Philadelphia.

Trump’s path to 270 Electoral College votes will begin with 164 practically in the bank, from 21 solid-red states generally considered sure things for the Republican nominee.

Here's how Clinton can give Trump the remaining Electoral votes he needs: First, Clinton is taking the Hispanic vote for granted. A new Fox Latino poll shows Clinton leading Trump by an impressive-sounding 39 points: 62 to 23. But there’s a problem: That 39-point spread is actually less than the 44 by which Barack Obama beat Mitt Romney in 2012. Hispanics simply don’t like Clinton nearly as much as they like Obama: Her favorable/unfavorable is a net +15 in that Fox Latino poll, while Obama’s is +46.

Second, Clinton is over-estimating the young vote. Hispanics simply don’t like Clinton nearly as much as they like Obama: Her favorable/unfavorable is a net +15 in that Fox Latino poll, while Obama’s is +46.

Second, Clinton is over-estimating the young vote. Millenials once seemed likely to usher in a substantial advantage for Democrats. Except they've stopped turning out to vote. In 2012 the number of 18-to-29-year-old voters dropped by 1.8 million from 2008.

Third, Clinton cannot count on organized labor. As soon as the votes were tallied in 2012, the AFL-CIO was claiming that the unions had delivered Obama's victory. Now Trump is tapping into the very real and very understandable anger of working people. Union voters largely agree with Trump that trade deals—including those negotiated by Democratic Presidents Obama and Bill Clinton—have taken their jobs away. Hillary Clinton has yet to counter this attack in any meaningful way. Remember that she promised to put coal miners and coal companies out of business.

It’s a long way to November, and Trump could always self-destruct. But he probably won’t, and 2016 is shaping up as a contest that a careful Clinton campaign can easily lose, state by state, even as she piles up the popular vote in California and other sure-win places. Demographics are not destiny. In fact, they can be a disaster waiting to happen.

[Hoog]

To tell me my (or anyone's) beliefs don't matter show's how little you value your own liberty. We may not agree, but attempting to stifle real choice is to be nothing more than a pawn of the people that put us in this position. The two party system is a fallacy.....a false dichotomy. For years it's been just them, and they've manipulated the playing field so thoroughly that 97% of those that actually vote see no other alternatives. It's perpetuated in the "wasted vote" bullshit. I hate the blinding stupidity of that thought process.

I will not vote for someone because I think they will do less damage than the other guy. I will vote for the candidate whose positions on the issues most closely reflect mine. This go 'round? That ain't Hillary, and it ain't Trump either.

[Mike Mercury]

Originally Posted by aerovette

or are you basing this on the select snippets on TV that are tools of dismantling him?

Originally Posted by Hoog

I will not vote for someone because I think they will do less damage than the other guy. I will vote for the candidate whose positions on the issues most closely reflect mine. This go 'round? That ain't Hillary, and it ain't Trump either.

well, then your taking away a vote from the "least damager"... but not any votes away from the "most damager".

You are giving Hillary a boost with this mindset; and so be it. But don't be in denial about the impact of your absence of a vote cast for one of the candidates of this years election.

you should always execrise your right to vote; even if lesser of two evils.

The more-evil candidate (if elected) may just take away your right to vote again; did you consider that possible outcome ?

[Hoog]

Originally Posted by Mike Mercury

well, then your taking away a vote from the "least damager"... but not any votes away from the "most damager".

You are giving Hillary a boost with this mindset; and so be it. But don't be in denial about the impact of your absence from this years election.

you should always execrise your right to vote; even if lesser of two evils. The more-evil candidate (if elected) may just take away your right to vote again; did you consider that possible outcome ?

WOOOOSH!

I am voting, but thank you for demonstrating my point.

[Aerovette]

Originally Posted by Craig

The real "slow kids" are the ones that supported an unelectable candidate, because they wanted to piss off "the establishment" (by the way, they're in the minority, that's why he's going to lose). It's all or nothing with them. Congrats, they're going to get 100% of nothing. That's not my fault.

Being a majority does not equal being correct.

In prison the majority are lawbreakers (versus guards) but if a vote was taken as to whether they should be set free or not, well I think we know how that would go.

When you pander and offer free everything, you'll get a following. Simply dogs looking for a treat.

[Mike Mercury]

only one of the two frontrunners will win; period. All historical data (in modern times) show that a third party candidate (especially when rallied for in the last monmths of an election) will not

You can help decide which one of them it is; unless you either don't vote...or cast your vote to a third party that can't win.)

Is Pat Paulsen running this time?

[Craig]

Originally Posted by aerovette

Being a majority does not equal being correct.

Understood, but it does mean you're, pretty much, not going to win.

[Mike Mercury]

the closest a third party candidate came in a presidential election was George Wallace.

Originally Posted by from Wikipee

George Wallace carried five Southern states, won almost ten million popular votes and 46 electoral votes, Nixon received 301 electoral votes. Wallace remains the last non-Democratic, non-Republican candidate to win any electoral votes by vote of the people.

in this 21st century, it's a "protest vote" to not pick between the top two runners. Nothing wrong with doing that either. But there is a combined effort to see to Hillarys defeat; don't you see that?

[Hoog]

You're still proving my point...but now I'm 1) a fool 2) a coward or 3) just don't understand the ramifications of my vote.

I get it Mike, you think your opinion is more valid than mine. You're wrong, but that's on you.

[polarbear]

Originally Posted by Hoog

You're still proving my point...but now I'm 1) a fool 2) a coward or 3) just don't understand the ramifications of my vote.

I get it Mike, you think your opinion is more valid than mine. You're wrong, but that's on you.

I do understand- but here's my perspective.

Four years ago, Mittens lost to O, in large part, because he wasn't conservative enough for the conservatives in the Republican party, and they stayed away in droves. Choices have consequences, and we are looking at them today.

1. We wound up with eight years of arguably the most incompetent President in post-war America. I won't bore you with the details, but pick a category- any category- domestic policy, economic policy, foreign policy, even race relations fer crissakes (how did that happen?), and it's fair to say Obama and/or his Administration suck at it.

Then there's the not small issue of an almost total disregard of the Constitution, a government credibility gap that we haven't seen since the Johnson days (they both lied like rugs), and a personal agenda that the majority of Americans do not buy into. All this set the stage for...

wait for it...

2. The (not) stellar choices of Hillary and Trump this go around. For the Democrats, Hillary makes sense. It's the only way Obama's liberal legacy can be sustained. Trump, on the other hand, waged war (and won, I might add) against the ruling Republican factions and their unpopular policy stances (immigration, trade) and voting records. Trump isn't a reformer- he's a one-man wrecking ball. His victory can't be that surprising- all of his competitors except one were darlings of the ruling elite. The one (Cruz) is simply too socially conservative to be mainstream in 21st century America.

Bottom line here- the choices we have today are a direct result of some poor choices being made by conservatives four years ago. Republicans have a reputation from snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory- there's your answer on how that happens. To win, the (new) Party must:

1. Ditch the social conservative, divisive issues that Democrats live to challenge. Steer clear of them entirely- Democrats have made a career out of calling conservatives racist bigots (and worse) every time any of these issues hit the news. They live for this stuff- don't give it to them.

2. Focus on issues the voters care about: the economy, jobs, trade, immigration, national security, etc.

Anyone who threw away a vote to a third/fourth party, or worse yet abstained, deserves everything they got. What pizzes me off is the rest of us (the ones that actually understood how important this was) got jabbed just as hard. I'd hate to see this happen again.

[Mike Mercury]

Originally Posted by Hoog

I get it Mike, you think your opinion is more valid than mine. You're wrong, but that's on you.

naw, that's not it at all. I think your "protest vote" won't be heard by anyone; hence it's no protest. It's the 21st century; those late 1960's tactics no longer work like they use to.

If the rules were that you could only vote for one of the two frontrunners... or not vote at all... your choice would not be "for" Trump...but you would take a vote away from the Clinton (by choosing Trump).

If you vote third party, you will be taking a vote away from the person best able to defeat Hillary.

You can either vote for the person best capable of winning against this socialist bitch; or you can assure her victory.

It reallty is that simple.

[Craig]

Hmm..."socialist bitch" verses "undisciplined, unknowledgeable, narcissist, whack-job", why can't I pick none of the above..?

[Dan Dlabay]

I am going to vote for Trump. One reason is that he is not part the Washington insiders and I think that scares both the Republicans and Demarcates.

[Mike Mercury]

Originally Posted by Craig

Hmm..."socialist bitch" verses "undisciplined, unknowledgeable, narcissist, whack-job", why can't I pick none of the above..?

I hear ya !

if you dont' want Hillary as the next president, then vote for Trump (he's the only one that has a shot at winning).

[Craig]

Originally Posted by Mike Mercury

I hear ya !

if you dont' want Hillary as the next president, then vote for Trump (he's the only one that has a shot at winning).

But if you decide to not vote for Trump... and Hillary wins... will you take some responsibility for this outcome ?

I'm in Georgia, it'll be red regardless of my vote; if that weren't the case, I'd probably have a lot more angst to deal with.

[Hoog]

Originally Posted by polarbear

I do understand- but here's my perspective.

...and I agree with almost all of that.

The Republicans screwed themselves in the last two elections. I believe it was primarily because they're clueless regarding the "pulse" of the country, especially on social issues. They need to own it. To even partially blame voters like me is intellectual dishonesty...at best.