The General Election

[TAKODA]

I am not sure why this thread continues? There is not one candidate in this election that is more appealing than the others! When I read the comments in this thread, it almost appears that everyone is hollering or speaking over the others (like kids) so their point is heard. Believe it or not, many R and D voters are equally confounded. This is not a contest to see who's Johnson is biggest,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I quit reading Savage's post after the $13 million part. Congress probably spends that sneezing each day they're in session. Using it to try for healthcare reform is not even bad in my opinion. Lots of things are researched and never go to a vote

 

I'd like a link proving Congress has been in session. I don't believe you.

Mentality like that, I imagine you would be OK with your kid/spouse/etc. to wastefuly spend money and not bat an eye. Our government, and Hillary, spends money like It won't run out, but we shouldn't be concerned about that.

You're talking about .0000032508127% of the budget.

and that's the only occurrence of frivolous and misguided spending?

By whom? Which person or party?

both parties, many republicans don't practice what they preach either, Bush for one. And Obama has continued to expand the spending.

So, why are people voting for either one?

Good question!

 

I am not sure why this thread continues? There is not one candidate in this election that is more appealing than the others!

[BigRedBuster]

I am not sure why this thread continues? There is not one candidate in this election that is more appealing than the others! When I read the comments in this thread, it almost appears that everyone is hollering or speaking over the others (like kids) so their point is heard. Believe it or not, many R and D voters are equally confounded. This is not a contest to see who's Johnson is biggest,

 

[TAKODA]

 

I am not sure why this thread continues? There is not one candidate in this election that is more appealing than the others! When I read the comments in this thread, it almost appears that everyone is hollering or speaking over the others (like kids) so their point is heard. Believe it or not, many R and D voters are equally confounded. This is not a contest to see who's Johnson is biggest,

 

Hehe! +1,

 

I have a heck of a time using my I-pad. How the heck did my comment separate and repeat a portion of it?

[huKSer]

 

 

I am not sure why this thread continues? There is not one candidate in this election that is more appealing than the others! When I read the comments in this thread, it almost appears that everyone is hollering or speaking over the others (like kids) so their point is heard. Believe it or not, many R and D voters are equally confounded. This is not a contest to see who's Johnson is biggest,

Hehe! +1,

 

I have a heck of a time using my I-pad. How the heck did my comment separate and repeat a portion of it?

 

 

Obviously you have Gremlins in you I-pad.

 

There are three rules: (1) no bright light, (2) don't get the I-pad wet, and (3) never feed the I-pad after midnight, no matter how much the I-pad begs. Bright light hurts the I-pad, and sunlight can kill the I-pad.

[NM11046]

 

 

Both candidates suck, one talks out of both sides of their mouth, the other with a foot in their mouth, but this broad is the real life version of Claire Underwood and her track record speaks for itself. The ineptitude of this individual is glaring. Passed along from a friend:

If you're under 50 you really need to read this. If you’re over 50, you lived through it, so share it with those under 50. Amazing to me how much I had forgotten!

When Bill Clinton was president, he allowed Hillary to assume authority over a health care reform. Even after threats and intimidation, she couldn’t even get a vote in a democratic controlled congress. This fiasco cost the American taxpayers about $13 million in cost for studies, promotion, and other efforts.

Then President Clinton gave Hillary authority over selecting a female attorney general. Her first two selections were Zoe Baird and Kimba Wood – both were forced to withdraw their names from consideration. Next she chose Janet Reno – husband Bill described her selection as “my worst mistake.” Some may not remember that Reno made the decision to gas David Koresh and the Branch Davidian religious sect in Waco, Texas resulting in dozens of deaths of women and children.

Husband Bill allowed Hillary to make recommendations for the head of the Civil Rights Commission. Lani Guanier was her selection. When a little probing led to the discovery of Ms. Guanier’s radical views, her name had to be withdrawn from consideration.

Apparently a slow learner, husband Bill allowed Hillary to make some more recommendations. She chose former law partners Web Hubbel for the Justice Department, Vince Foster for the White House staff, and William Kennedy for the Treasury Department. Her selections went well: Hubbel went to prison, Foster (presumably) committed suicide, and Kennedy was forced to resign.

Many younger votes will have no knowledge of “Travelgate.” Hillary wanted to award unfettered travel contracts to Clinton friend Harry Thompson – and the White House Travel Office refused to comply. She managed to have them reported to the FBI and fired. This ruined their reputations, cost them their jobs, and caused a thirty-six month investigation. Only one employee, Billy Dale was charged with a crime, and that of the enormous crime of mixing personal and White House funds. A jury acquitted him of any crime in less than two hours.

Still not convinced of her ineptness, Hillary was allowed to recommend a close Clinton friend, Craig Livingstone, for the position of Director of White House security. When Livingstone was investigated for the improper access of about 900 FBI files of Clinton enemies (Filegate) and the widespread use of drugs by White House staff, suddenly Hillary and the president denied even knowing Livingstone, and of course, denied knowledge of drug use in the White House.

Following this debacle, the FBI closed its White House Liaison Office after more than thirty years of service to seven presidents.

Next, when women started coming forward with allegations of sexual harassment and rape by Bill Clinton, Hillary was put in charge of the #$%$ eruption” and scandal defense. Some of her more notable decisions in the debacle were:

She urged her husband not to settle the Paula Jones lawsuit. After the Starr investigation they settled with Ms. Jones.

She refused to release the Whitewater documents, which led to the appointment of Ken Starr as Special Prosecutor.

After $80 million dollars of taxpayer money was spent, Starr's investigation led to Monica Lewinsky, which led to Bill lying about and later admitting his affairs.

Hillary’s devious game plan resulted in Bill losing his license to practice law for 'lying under oath' to a grand jury and then his subsequent impeachment by the House of Representatives.

Hillary avoided indictment for perjury and obstruction of justice during the Starr investigation by repeating, “I do not recall,” “I have no recollection,” and “I don’t know” a total of 56 times while under oath.

After leaving the White House, Hillary was forced to return an estimated $200,000 in White House furniture, china, and artwork that she had stolen.

What a swell party – ready for another four or eight year of this type of low-life mess?

Now we are exposed to the destruction of possibly incriminating emails while Hillary was Secretary of State and the “pay to play” schemes of the Clinton Foundation – we have no idea what shoe will fall next.

But to her loyal fans (supporters) - I guess in her own words “what difference does it make?”

And the crazy thing is, if Donald was a public figure and every one of his moves for his career was noted his mistakes and their impact would also be significant. Depending on your values and beliefs they could be considered worse. He's getting the benefit of not being in the public eye, and even more so, of you all not demanding that he answer any question with information, or that he disclose information like his tax returns etc. Two totally different standards.

 

Why can't republicans sell us their candidate based on accomplishments and policy, plans of action and accountability? Because Trump has offered none. Instead they focus on trying to take down every competitor like Mean Girls. In life most often you must prove yourself and then you can earn the right to compare against your competitor. How he's snowed everyone into not requiring anything of substance to back him is just mindblowing.

 

Andrea Mitchell said it quite well on Meet The Press: http://mediamatters.org/video/2016/03/27/nbcs-andrea-mitchell-donald-trump-is-completely/209566

Trump isn't a public figure? And hasn't been scrutinized over anything he is involved in? Interesting.

 

Republicans are the only party that tear a candidate down Mean Girls style? I spent 22 years in WA state and raised Christian and conservative, no where else have had my beliefs openly ridiculed and mocked more than the liberals of a state where they are concerned about treating everyone's opinion and rights equally.

 

I agree that Trump hasn't offered much for policies other than making brash comments about building a wall and kicking out Muslims. However, his healthcare ideas are better than what we're stuck with now, except for his idea about allow foreign pharmaceutical companies to import into the US. Reforming NAFTA is also a good idea too, that original deal has ended up benefitting only the elite and pinched the middle class.

 

If Trump wasn't a jackmonster, and started clearly outlining policies and his agendas, he would win in a landslide. The policies Hillary and dems are standing for shouldn't even be allowed in an American political platform. Their socialistic ideas are what this nation has stood up to and fought against. There was once a president that spoke about people giving to the country and not asking what the country can do for them, that democrat barely exists and is drowned out by the rest.

 

Well now perhaps. But before getting into the election a year or so ago he was a private citizen. One that was well known, one that thought of himself as a superstar and certainly craved the spotlight but he was a private citizen. And the result of that, and something he's tried to carry over into this role as political candidate is that he hasn't had to disclose the same amount of information, over the same number of years as someone like Hillary who has been a servant of the public for 30 years.

 

Are you telling me that you feel the tone of this election has been similar with both parties? From my end the name calling, tweet attacks, accusations coming from the right are beyond a maturity and a professional issue. Sadly, the left has started swinging back to some extent. Yes, there's been dirty play in past elections, but this round it's childish and embarrassing (my Mean Girls comment refers to the name calling and bullying - kicking reporters out of conferences because one doesn't like what's been written about them, belittling people for their looks, for their handicaps etc). Seeing it happen from the top has given followers the sense that the behavior is ok, and the world is not a better place for it. Even some of the discussions on this site are more combative than I think we would have seen 4 years ago.

 

I'm sorry that you felt persecuted while in Washington. I'm not sure I fully buy into your perspective that it was because of your religion & beliefs and the fact that it's a liberal state, but regardless I'm sorry. Sadly, there are individuals that align to any party or candidate that are not good, kind people. My issue is that until this election there was a level of respect between candidates, which then resulted in respect for the office. It used to be that you engaged during the election year, and the no matter the outcome you supported the President of the US. No matter the outcome of this election there will be a significant number of people who have zero respect for the candidate elected, they will act out and they will be patted on the back for it.

 

I'm glad you have faith that IF Trump shared the details for his ideas he'd win in a landslide. We'll have to agree to disagree on that. What everyone on the right seems to forget is that the President alone can't do much. Without the support of Congress, he gets nowhere - as we've seen with the refusal of the right to support anything put forward the last 4 years; not because content was necessarily different than they'd support but because of spite and in order to make a point. Trumps not making any friends, in fact he's alienating people within his own party; respected, important people. Although he thinks he can fix things because he demands it - the real world is that he's got to be diplomatic and flexible and open to sacrifice to get something. I don't think he's capable.

[zoogs]

LMAO, BRB. Love that picture.

[knapplc]

What was it, a month ago when 538 had Clinton's odds at 80/20 to win the election? It's 53.6% Hillary to 46.4% Trump right now.

 

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

 

I don't know if the 80/20 split or 54/46 split is more normal. Certainly elections are more typically the latter, but 538 isn't exactly predicting the outcome of the election with that.

 

Still, it's a huge move for Trump.

[knapplc]

Trump: A fascist surrounded by fascists.

 

[HuskerNation1]

 

 

 

I am certain Hillary will get a rebound bounce, but I am perplexed why she hasnt stopped Trumps growing numbers in the LA Times daily tracking poll yet. This poll is in a seven day rolling average, and Trumps numbers have gone up during the first 3 days of the DNC, not down. I would have expected the numbers to have gone down by now. I do think you will see them shrink by tomorrow but we shall see.

 

http://www.latimes.com/politics/

Trump's RNC bump didn't start until after the RNC convention. If Hillary gets one it probably won't show up until after the DNC convention.

Well and it depends on the poll. Rasmussens poll just out now shows no bump for Trump at all in the past week. I've never seen more variance among major polling groups in any election cycle.

Correction...Rasmussens poll I just referenced was not a full week rolling average but was done Tuesdsay and Wednesday of this week so it would incorporate the DNC convention. The LA Times is a 7 day rolling average with a huge sample of likely voters.

 

 

So a few weeks ago it looked like the Rasmussen and Reuters poll were outliers with Rasmussen showing Trump up by 5 to 7 points, and Reuters showing Hillary up by 15. Now Rasmussen has Hillary up by 1 today, and Reuters shows a 17 point swing for Trump, and he's up by 2 on Hillary.

 

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/28/poll-trump-gains-17-point-swing-two-weeks-clinton/

[Red Five]

What was it, a month ago when 538 had Clinton's odds at 80/20 to win the election? It's 53.6% Hillary to 46.4% Trump right now.

 

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

 

I don't know if the 80/20 split or 54/46 split is more normal. Certainly elections are more typically the latter, but 538 isn't exactly predicting the outcome of the election with that.

 

Still, it's a huge move for Trump.

 

July 12 is was 77/22.

[zoogs]

Re: 538, these are big number differences, but aren't they just swing states ... behaving like swing states? Here's Nate Silver on the topic:

 

 

Nate: I’m sort of annoyed by it being 80 percent, because I feel like that’s the number people most misinterpret. When you say 80 percent, people take that to mean “really, really certain.” It’s not, particularly.

 

In the 538 poll-plus forecasts, Hillary has been at roughly the 60% line. I don't know if this is the same methodology from 2012, but in late July it was 65-35 Obama, shot up to 85-15 Oct 1, and sunk to 61-39 in a span of just ten days, before careening back to 90%. So the numbers move wildly, and it's hard for me to tell what we can glean from how they trend several months out.

 

Also, in 2012 Romney didn't really distinguish himself from the incumbent. Yes, they had stark agenda and policy differences, but Americans may not be all that ideological. We have an actual "change" candidate this time, in a time when we're truly split on whether to change or stay course -- and so an actual contest should perhaps be expected.

[huKSer]

I read somewhere that polling accuracy has gone way down. The result of fewer people having land lines which traditionally tied the demographics to a better sampling statistics.

[NM11046]

I read somewhere that polling accuracy has gone way down. The result of fewer people having land lines which traditionally tied the demographics to a better sampling statistics.

That and the people who do have landlines certainly fit a certain stereotype.

[huKSer]

 

I read somewhere that polling accuracy has gone way down. The result of fewer people having land lines which traditionally tied the demographics to a better sampling statistics.

That and the people who do have landlines certainly fit a certain stereotype.

 

 

Are you making fun of me for having AOL dial up internet?

[HuskerNation1]

I read somewhere that polling accuracy has gone way down. The result of fewer people having land lines which traditionally tied the demographics to a better sampling statistics.

 

It wouldn't surprise me. We have seen huge swings in the recent elections and each polling group will alter their sample to reflect who they they will be showing up this fall. For instance, the general party Identification is something like 36% Dems, 33% Republicans, and 30% Independents. Now these numbers will flucutate slightly, but I have seen some polls out that use a final sample of 45% Dems, 32% Republicans, and only 22% Independents. In those cases, the numbers for Trump and Johnson are lower, while they are higher for HIllary. Every time I see a poll I try to see their methodology but most of the polling firms are not real up front on how they weighted their sample to reflect the final results.