The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

USA Presidential Election 2016: Vice Vice Baby

195969798100

Posts

  • LTMLTM Bikes and BeardsRegistered User regular
    Shorty wrote: »
    yeah, those numbers are going to change a lot after the dnc, and they're going to change a lot more once the campaign really starts

    "trump with a 57% chance of winning if the election were held today" isn't something I feel the need to be worried about in July

    I would never have thought we would have elected Dubya to a second term in '04, either. I won't put anything past the American electorate after that.

  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    Jars wrote: »
    polling after only one party has done their convention is pretty suspect

    I saw a number elsewhere that the polling error drops pretty dramatically once you get into mid-August or so.

  • OmnipotentBagelOmnipotentBagel floof Registered User regular
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    yeah, those numbers are going to change a lot after the dnc, and they're going to change a lot more once the campaign really starts

    "trump with a 57% chance of winning if the election were held today" isn't something I feel the need to be worried about in July

    this isn't directed at you specifically but at this kind of post

    you know how this entire election we've been tossing up that picture of a dog in a burning house saying "this is fine" whenever trump does something stupid and/or horrible?

    I'm kind of getting that vibe from us now with regards to polls

    we've been saying "well this or that" for 8 months now. all the while he's gained.

    So what, we should panic every time a new poll is run? Literally the only poll that matters is the one where we cast our ballots. Numbers in July are irrelevant, so if people are going to keep reacting to updates, people are going to keep reminding them to fucking chill.

    No one is saying it's fine. They're saying "cool your jets, keep campaigning, if you're so inclined, make sure you vote in November, and remember that it's not over until it's over." I'm so tired of the doom and gloom routine. There's enough actively shitty things happening right now to spend time freaking out about potential shitty things that haven't happened yet and could very possibly never happen.

    cdci44qazyo3.gif

  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited July 2016
    LTM wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    yeah, those numbers are going to change a lot after the dnc, and they're going to change a lot more once the campaign really starts

    "trump with a 57% chance of winning if the election were held today" isn't something I feel the need to be worried about in July

    I would never have thought we would have elected Dubya to a second term in '04, either. I won't put anything past the American electorate after that.

    If you thought that you weren't paying close enough attention. W was an incumbent, the economy was recovering (albeit slowly), the Iraq war had yet to reach quagmire status, and his opponent was an uninspiring longtime Senator that also voted for the war.

    Bush was bad but by 2004 shit really hasn't hit the fan yet.

    Butters on
    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • augustaugust where you come from is gone Registered User regular
    rhylith wrote: »


    Young voters this election in a nutshell.

    I have so many people on my facebook saying they're the same and its fucking baffling

    Ask them how ok they are with letting Trump nominate enough Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v Wade for multiple generations of women.

  • ZythonZython Registered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    LTM wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    yeah, those numbers are going to change a lot after the dnc, and they're going to change a lot more once the campaign really starts

    "trump with a 57% chance of winning if the election were held today" isn't something I feel the need to be worried about in July

    I would never have thought we would have elected Dubya to a second term in '04, either. I won't put anything past the American electorate after that.

    If you thought that you weren't paying close enough attention. W was an incumbent, the economy was recovering (albeit slowly), the Iraq war had yet to reach quagmire status, and his opponent was an uninspiring longtime Senator that also voted for the war.

    Bush was bad but by 2004 shit really hasn't hit the fan yet.

    IIRC, Bush was ahead of Kerry throughout most of the election season.

    Switch: SW-3245-5421-8042 | 3DS Friend Code: 4854-6465-0299 | PSN: Zaithon
    Steam: pazython
  • Butler For Life #1Butler For Life #1 Twinning is WinningRegistered User regular
    These sorts of voters place ideological purity over practical concerns

    They'd rather go full #NeverHillary to avoid having to compromise their "purity" than vote for her to protect what's important

    It's more about identity than reality for those types

  • rhylithrhylith Death Rabbits HoustonRegistered User regular
    august wrote: »
    rhylith wrote: »


    Young voters this election in a nutshell.

    I have so many people on my facebook saying they're the same and its fucking baffling

    Ask them how ok they are with letting Trump nominate enough Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v Wade for multiple generations of women.

    It doesn't matter because one time Hillary something something emails

  • rhylithrhylith Death Rabbits HoustonRegistered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    LTM wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    yeah, those numbers are going to change a lot after the dnc, and they're going to change a lot more once the campaign really starts

    "trump with a 57% chance of winning if the election were held today" isn't something I feel the need to be worried about in July

    I would never have thought we would have elected Dubya to a second term in '04, either. I won't put anything past the American electorate after that.

    If you thought that you weren't paying close enough attention. W was an incumbent, the economy was recovering (albeit slowly), the Iraq war had yet to reach quagmire status, and his opponent was an uninspiring longtime Senator that also voted for the war.

    Bush was bad but by 2004 shit really hasn't hit the fan yet.

    I stayed home that election, but I know I used to be fooled by the whole "republicans are stronger on national security" thing. So the thought was "well we're in this shit now so might as well have someone who will finish it."

    Whooooooops.

  • Undead ScottsmanUndead Scottsman Cybertronian Paranormal Eliminator Registered User regular
    Yeah, the big thing with Kerry is that he was Not-Bush, and not enough people were fed up with Bush at that point to win Not-Bush an election.

  • ShortyShorty touching the meat Intergalactic Cool CourtRegistered User regular
    edited July 2016
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    yeah, those numbers are going to change a lot after the dnc, and they're going to change a lot more once the campaign really starts

    "trump with a 57% chance of winning if the election were held today" isn't something I feel the need to be worried about in July

    this isn't directed at you specifically but at this kind of post

    you know how this entire election we've been tossing up that picture of a dog in a burning house saying "this is fine" whenever trump does something stupid and/or horrible?

    I'm kind of getting that vibe from us now with regards to polls

    we've been saying "well this or that" for 8 months now. all the while he's gained.

    yeah, and I get it

    but there are some unanswered questions that a lot of people who are worried that trump might win have yet to respond to

    like, "given that barack Obama beat two challengers with the exact same base that Trump has (except arguably even more narrow), and given that Hillary Clinton has shown that she appeals to the exact same coalition that he built, how do you expect Trump to overcome that?"

    and, "given that the Republican election machine is in a shambles due to the revolt of its donor base and the fact that party leadership hates Trump, how do you expect his campaign to establish a ground game that can rival the infrastructure that the Democrats have built over the last eight years?"

    Shorty on
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    Zython wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    LTM wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    yeah, those numbers are going to change a lot after the dnc, and they're going to change a lot more once the campaign really starts

    "trump with a 57% chance of winning if the election were held today" isn't something I feel the need to be worried about in July

    I would never have thought we would have elected Dubya to a second term in '04, either. I won't put anything past the American electorate after that.

    If you thought that you weren't paying close enough attention. W was an incumbent, the economy was recovering (albeit slowly), the Iraq war had yet to reach quagmire status, and his opponent was an uninspiring longtime Senator that also voted for the war.

    Bush was bad but by 2004 shit really hasn't hit the fan yet.

    IIRC, Bush was ahead of Kerry throughout most of the election season.

    I believe you're right and you can point out a lot of major events falling in Bush's favor e.g. the perceived Howard Dean meltdown, the 60 Minutes Dan Rather fiasco, Barack Obama upstaging Kerry at his own convention, etc.

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • rhylithrhylith Death Rabbits HoustonRegistered User regular
    It takes a while for someone raised in a small middle class white-flight suburbia to see how the environment they were raised in isn't representative of the situation most people are in.

    I wish I had figured it out sooner. At least I actually did though.

  • ZythonZython Registered User regular
    Shorty wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    yeah, those numbers are going to change a lot after the dnc, and they're going to change a lot more once the campaign really starts

    "trump with a 57% chance of winning if the election were held today" isn't something I feel the need to be worried about in July

    this isn't directed at you specifically but at this kind of post

    you know how this entire election we've been tossing up that picture of a dog in a burning house saying "this is fine" whenever trump does something stupid and/or horrible?

    I'm kind of getting that vibe from us now with regards to polls

    we've been saying "well this or that" for 8 months now. all the while he's gained.

    yeah, and I get it

    but there are some unanswered questions that a lot of people who are worried that trump might win have yet to respond to

    like, "given that barack Obama beat two challengers with the exact same base that Trump does, and given that Hillary Clinton has shown that she appeals to the exact same coalition that he built, how do you expect Trump to overcome that?"

    and, "given that the Republican election machine is in a shambles due to the revolt of its donor base and the fact that party leadership hates Trump, how do you expect his campaign to establish a ground game that can rival the infrastructure that the Democrats have built over the last eight years?"

    Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if a decently-sized group of Trump's base forgets to vote or fails to register to do so, due to a failure/lack of Trump's GOTV.

    Switch: SW-3245-5421-8042 | 3DS Friend Code: 4854-6465-0299 | PSN: Zaithon
    Steam: pazython
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    rhylith wrote: »
    It takes a while for someone raised in a small middle class white-flight suburbia to see how the environment they were raised in isn't representative of the situation most people are in.

    I wish I had figured it out sooner. At least I actually did though.

    I hear ya, brother

    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    I'm afraid of Trump being elected the same way I'm afraid of dying while skydiving.

    I know that it's statistically unlikely and a lot of safety measures and contingencies would have to fail for it to happen, but the end result of all that is so horrifying that it pushes the fact that it's unlikely out of my head.

    Unfortunately there's no electoral equivalent of "well I guess I just won't go skydiving." So instead I guess I'll just be slightly more anxious than usual until November.

  • HobnailHobnail Registered User regular
    Shorty wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    yeah, those numbers are going to change a lot after the dnc, and they're going to change a lot more once the campaign really starts

    "trump with a 57% chance of winning if the election were held today" isn't something I feel the need to be worried about in July

    this isn't directed at you specifically but at this kind of post

    you know how this entire election we've been tossing up that picture of a dog in a burning house saying "this is fine" whenever trump does something stupid and/or horrible?

    I'm kind of getting that vibe from us now with regards to polls

    we've been saying "well this or that" for 8 months now. all the while he's gained.

    yeah, and I get it

    but there are some unanswered questions that a lot of people who are worried that trump might win have yet to respond to

    like, "given that barack Obama beat two challengers with the exact same base that Trump has (except arguably even more narrow), and given that Hillary Clinton has shown that she appeals to the exact same coalition that he built, how do you expect Trump to overcome that?"

    and, "given that the Republican election machine is in a shambles due to the revolt of its donor base and the fact that party leadership hates Trump, how do you expect his campaign to establish a ground game that can rival the infrastructure that the Democrats have built over the last eight years?"

    I have absolutely no idea but then again what I was expecting before is that the despicable piece of shit would have stopped existing politically months and months ago

    Do you like my photos? The stupid things I say? The way I am alive? You can contribute to that staying the same through the following link

    https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
  • XaquinXaquin Right behind you!Registered User regular
    Shorty wrote: »
    Xaquin wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    yeah, those numbers are going to change a lot after the dnc, and they're going to change a lot more once the campaign really starts

    "trump with a 57% chance of winning if the election were held today" isn't something I feel the need to be worried about in July

    this isn't directed at you specifically but at this kind of post

    you know how this entire election we've been tossing up that picture of a dog in a burning house saying "this is fine" whenever trump does something stupid and/or horrible?

    I'm kind of getting that vibe from us now with regards to polls

    we've been saying "well this or that" for 8 months now. all the while he's gained.

    yeah, and I get it

    but there are some unanswered questions that a lot of people who are worried that trump might win have yet to respond to

    like, "given that barack Obama beat two challengers with the exact same base that Trump has (except arguably even more narrow), and given that Hillary Clinton has shown that she appeals to the exact same coalition that he built, how do you expect Trump to overcome that?"

    and, "given that the Republican election machine is in a shambles due to the revolt of its donor base and the fact that party leadership hates Trump, how do you expect his campaign to establish a ground game that can rival the infrastructure that the Democrats have built over the last eight years?"

    In response to question one, I'll note that Obama didn't face the level of opposition from his own party that clinton does.

    as for number two, I'm hoping I'm wrong, but I don't believe trump needs a ground game. he curb stomped every other candidate while literally spouting conspiracy theories and changing positions occasionally 5 times in 60 seconds! No one gives a damn about trump because of policy, they either 1: hate clinton or 2: hate the world. These people are going to vote whether there are trump signs in yards or not.

  • JarsJars Registered User regular
    I'm proooobably going to take the wensday after election day off

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    Jars wrote: »
    I'm proooobably going to take the wensday after election day off

    Election day is literally the day I go to Italy for my honeymoon.

  • JarsJars Registered User regular
    at least you will know whether or not to make it a permanent vacation

  • fightinfilipinofightinfilipino Angry as Hell #BLMRegistered User regular
    These sorts of voters place ideological purity over practical concerns

    They'd rather go full #NeverHillary to avoid having to compromise their "purity" than vote for her to protect what's important

    It's more about identity than reality for those types

    i very much hate this argument.

    you can't discount folks on "ideological purity". for the most part, they're looking for a candidate that shares their values. political "reality" is also shaped by who we elect. if the goal is to effect change, one of the means to that goal is to elect people who will likely bring that change, or at least have the same goal in mind. you can't blame people for wanting that.

    if the goals themselves are terrible, that's something else.

    there's a lot Clinton has policy-wise that i detest. continuing Obama's drone war. few changes to how draconian immigration enforcement has been. an economic policy not focused enough on fighting poverty and income inequality. i was honestly over it and ready to vote for Clinton, in part to stop Trump, when the DNC e-mail fiasco occurred and then the Clinton campaign brings Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on board.

    what.

    that's like a metaphorical middle finger to folks who might have been on the fence, or even might have been a #NeverHillary-type. that just shows entirely poor judgment. a huge misunderstanding of the optics.

    why the shit should i vote for Clinton now when her campaign can't even get this basic thing right? at least make an attempt to understand how upset people are?

    i used to not understand why people wouldn't vote at all, but for the first time in my life i get it.

    ffNewSig.png
    steam | Dokkan: 868846562
  • mxmarksmxmarks Registered User regular
    Because the opposition will literally round up your friends and loved ones who are muslim and do god knows what with them.

    Also they will betray our allies and may be working with the KGB.

    I get what you're saying - I voted for Bernie too, and I think Clinton is being shockingly bad at some stuff.

    But for the first time in my lifetime, the stakes are way way too high.

    I could have lived under Romney and been just fine. Or McCain/Palin honestly.

    Trump is literally terrifying.

    PSN: mxmarks - WiiU: mxmarks - twitter: @ MikesPS4 - twitch.tv/mxmarks - "Yes, mxmarks is the King of Queens" - Unbreakable Vow
  • ArdolArdol Registered User regular
    I remember hearing in '04 that people were voting Bush because he got us into the Iraq mess he should be the one responsible for getting us out of it.

    Shit was infuriating.

  • WhittledownWhittledown Registered User regular
    These sorts of voters place ideological purity over practical concerns

    They'd rather go full #NeverHillary to avoid having to compromise their "purity" than vote for her to protect what's important

    It's more about identity than reality for those types

    i very much hate this argument.

    you can't discount folks on "ideological purity". for the most part, they're looking for a candidate that shares their values. political "reality" is also shaped by who we elect. if the goal is to effect change, one of the means to that goal is to elect people who will likely bring that change, or at least have the same goal in mind. you can't blame people for wanting that.

    if the goals themselves are terrible, that's something else.

    there's a lot Clinton has policy-wise that i detest. continuing Obama's drone war. few changes to how draconian immigration enforcement has been. an economic policy not focused enough on fighting poverty and income inequality. i was honestly over it and ready to vote for Clinton, in part to stop Trump, when the DNC e-mail fiasco occurred and then the Clinton campaign brings Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on board.

    what.

    that's like a metaphorical middle finger to folks who might have been on the fence, or even might have been a #NeverHillary-type. that just shows entirely poor judgment. a huge misunderstanding of the optics.

    why the shit should i vote for Clinton now when her campaign can't even get this basic thing right? at least make an attempt to understand how upset people are?

    i used to not understand why people wouldn't vote at all, but for the first time in my life i get it.

    Keeping a self-serving ass with an axe to grind happy and quiet with a honorary position to keep her from screwing more up? Seems fine to me.

    DRCdHs6.jpg?1
  • rhylithrhylith Death Rabbits HoustonRegistered User regular
    Wait, few changes on immigration? Isn't comprehensive immigration reform part of her platform? Also raising the minimum wage and providing free state college isn't helping with income inequality or fighting poverty?

    The drone thing, I'll give you that, but if trump wins you're gonna be way, way, WAY less satisfied than if Hillary does.

    Vote for the realistic candidate that best fits your values and won't provide an opportunity to the one who least fits.

  • fightinfilipinofightinfilipino Angry as Hell #BLMRegistered User regular
    mxmarks wrote: »
    Trump is literally terrifying.

    i agree with this, and yet, absolute fear should not drive how people vote. and way too many people out there feel some form of this same thing.

    ffNewSig.png
    steam | Dokkan: 868846562
  • rhylithrhylith Death Rabbits HoustonRegistered User regular
    mxmarks wrote: »
    Trump is literally terrifying.

    i agree with this, and yet, absolute fear should not drive how people vote. and way too many people out there feel some form of this same thing.

    You've already shown you haven't even bothered to look at her policy plans. There's a lot of truly good stuff there to vote for.

    Don't let perfect be the enemy of good here.

  • ph blakeph blake Registered User regular
    mxmarks wrote: »
    Trump is literally terrifying.

    i agree with this, and yet, absolute fear should not drive how people vote. and way too many people out there feel some form of this same thing.

    Uh, why not?

    7h8wnycre6vs.png
  • DoobhDoobh She/Her, Ace Pan/Bisexual 8-) What's up, bootlickers?Registered User regular
    I sure wish I had a candidate that doesn't scare me

    Miss me? Find me on:

    Twitch (I stream most days of the week)
    Twitter (mean leftist discourse)
  • WhittledownWhittledown Registered User regular
    Personally I'm voting because I agree with Hillary on most things AND Trump scares the bejesus out of me.

    DRCdHs6.jpg?1
  • captainkcaptaink TexasRegistered User regular
    august wrote: »
    rhylith wrote: »


    Young voters this election in a nutshell.

    I have so many people on my facebook saying they're the same and its fucking baffling

    Ask them how ok they are with letting Trump nominate enough Supreme Court justices to overturn Roe v Wade for multiple generations of women.

    I saw the reverse of this on my facebook yesterday. "You may not like Trump, but imagine how awful Clinton's Supreme Court nominees will be!". It was kind of surreal.

  • LTMLTM Bikes and BeardsRegistered User regular
    Clinton is trying her hardest to alienate all but her most ardent supporters. She will make an absolutely horrid President, but the other option is Trump, so...

  • JarsJars Registered User regular
    ph blake wrote: »
    mxmarks wrote: »
    Trump is literally terrifying.

    i agree with this, and yet, absolute fear should not drive how people vote. and way too many people out there feel some form of this same thing.

    Uh, why not?

    you should want to vote for the person you are voting for

    but I think people disregard a lot of positives in hilary's platform for a couple pet issues like drones

  • SleepSleep Registered User regular
    LTM wrote: »
    Clinton is trying her hardest to alienate all but her most ardent supporters. She will make an absolutely horrid President, but the other option is Trump, so...

    And this is why any concessions were a useless step by the way, because apparently being the most progressive platform of all time doesn't mean shit.

  • MuddypawsMuddypaws Lactodorum, UKRegistered User regular
    LTM wrote: »
    Clinton is trying her hardest to alienate all but her most ardent supporters. She will make an absolutely horrid President, but the other option is Trump, so...

    How exactly? And don't say DWS. She's been given a shiny "I participated!" medal and will be shoved into a locked room for the foreseeable future so she doesn't do a Cruz. Big deal.

  • Butler For Life #1Butler For Life #1 Twinning is WinningRegistered User regular
    These sorts of voters place ideological purity over practical concerns

    They'd rather go full #NeverHillary to avoid having to compromise their "purity" than vote for her to protect what's important

    It's more about identity than reality for those types

    i very much hate this argument.

    you can't discount folks on "ideological purity". for the most part, they're looking for a candidate that shares their values. political "reality" is also shaped by who we elect. if the goal is to effect change, one of the means to that goal is to elect people who will likely bring that change, or at least have the same goal in mind. you can't blame people for wanting that.

    if the goals themselves are terrible, that's something else.

    there's a lot Clinton has policy-wise that i detest. continuing Obama's drone war. few changes to how draconian immigration enforcement has been. an economic policy not focused enough on fighting poverty and income inequality. i was honestly over it and ready to vote for Clinton, in part to stop Trump, when the DNC e-mail fiasco occurred and then the Clinton campaign brings Debbie Wasserman-Schultz on board.

    what.

    that's like a metaphorical middle finger to folks who might have been on the fence, or even might have been a #NeverHillary-type. that just shows entirely poor judgment. a huge misunderstanding of the optics.

    why the shit should i vote for Clinton now when her campaign can't even get this basic thing right? at least make an attempt to understand how upset people are?

    i used to not understand why people wouldn't vote at all, but for the first time in my life i get it.

    It's fine to have this viewpoint, just as long as one accepts the consequences that come with it.

    Not voting for Hillary helps a fascist reach the White House.

    I hate having to make a statement like that, but it's true. It's patronizing and paternalistic to say it, but I feel that it is true.

    It's fine to decide that Hillary isn't in line with one's views and that one shouldn't vote for her. But it's not okay to pretend that stance helps achieve liberal goals. It hurts the effort.

  • DouglasDangerDouglasDanger PennsylvaniaRegistered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    rhylith wrote: »
    It takes a while for someone raised in a small middle class white-flight suburbia to see how the environment they were raised in isn't representative of the situation most people are in.

    I wish I had figured it out sooner. At least I actually did though.

    I hear ya, brother

    Yes same thing here

  • LTMLTM Bikes and BeardsRegistered User regular
    Butters wrote: »
    Zython wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    LTM wrote: »
    Shorty wrote: »
    yeah, those numbers are going to change a lot after the dnc, and they're going to change a lot more once the campaign really starts

    "trump with a 57% chance of winning if the election were held today" isn't something I feel the need to be worried about in July

    I would never have thought we would have elected Dubya to a second term in '04, either. I won't put anything past the American electorate after that.

    If you thought that you weren't paying close enough attention. W was an incumbent, the economy was recovering (albeit slowly), the Iraq war had yet to reach quagmire status, and his opponent was an uninspiring longtime Senator that also voted for the war.

    Bush was bad but by 2004 shit really hasn't hit the fan yet.

    IIRC, Bush was ahead of Kerry throughout most of the election season.

    I believe you're right and you can point out a lot of major events falling in Bush's favor e.g. the perceived Howard Dean meltdown, the 60 Minutes Dan Rather fiasco, Barack Obama upstaging Kerry at his own convention, etc.

    I just remember thinking that being "Not-Bush" was going to be enough. It was clear the direction in which the country was heading, at least imo.

    Then he was elected, we hit bottom, and now we're here...

This discussion has been closed.