a Trump vs Clinton United States Presidential Election in 2016
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
No worries.
My argument was basically that the term has been so broadly applied that it no longer carries a proper stigma and becomes less useful.
So, Trump telling his violent supporters to knock it off, Trump backing down on campaign promises before even getting into office, Trump saying he's only going to live at the White House part-time.
Pence presidency.
Pence presidency.
That's one of the most staggering things, to me. Trump ran for President without actually understanding what the job entails. There are sources saying that his transition team was unaware that the entire west wing staff would be leaving with Obama. In fact, they're so unaware of the scope of the job that Obama will be spending a lot of his lame duck session educating Trump in, essentially, the responsibilities of the job. It's like he thought it was some cushy part-time gig you could just stroll into and let other people worry about the details. You know, like being on a reality TV show.
It was just a thing he wanted to have.
Wait a minute, hold up, hold the phone.
Are you saying this whole thing was to feed Trump's ego?
Psh. That's crazy talk.
Are you saying this whole thing was to feed Trump's ego?
Psh. That's crazy talk.
Man, I respect Kasich for having the principles to not kiss Trump's ring and join him, but I really wish he caved.
Why do you wish he caved? Was he in line to be vice president?
Dammit. I praised Kasich for sticking to his guns, but now I wish he'd played the long game. Then again, we all thought Trump would lose.
By ALL data, Kasich DID play the long game. But you can play the long game and still lose sometimes.
But hey! At least it means he's probably going to get his ass voted out. I'd love another Democratic governor here in Ohio.
They haven't even started the process yet... bunch of wussies.
The thing is, the media was being hyperbolic, when they didn't need to, and simple fact checking and just repeating Trump's words and saying why they're wrong/lies would have been just as effective at showing the racism etc, while not allowing some people to dismiss the criticism because they could tell themselves that "they're being melodramatic about it, it probably isn't that bad" etc.
Last edited:
I think it would be hilarious if years down the road we find out that the conspiracy theory that Hillary hired Trump to run against her was true, and that he became more unhinged and erratic trying to ruin his numbers, but found that it only made them go higher. That getting elected was such a surprise, but they had to run with it because otherwise it would expose the conspiracy. Now he's stuck, and she's left wondering if a person exists that she would have actually won against.[DOUBLEPOST=1479216715,1479216331][/DOUBLEPOST]
But what really happened is that every single news show reported on Trump. There is no such thing as bad news - only name recognition. His face and name appeared so much on TV and in print, and the contrast was very sharp compared to Clinton's coverage. It was free advertising.
And whether they agreed with what he was saying or not, simply seeing his face and hearing his voice every single night caused people to become familiar with him.
The policy ceased to matter. The words ceased to matter.
All that mattered was getting face time.
There's a reason movie actors include "close up face shots" in their contracts.
And Trump played his part beautifully. The media understood this, too, but they were stuck. If they didn't report on him, people would change the channel because it wasn't as entertaining/inflammatory. If they did they were giving him free advertising.
The media did report all his terrible quotes, hoping it would turn people against him.
But what really happened is that every single news show reported on Trump. There is no such thing as bad news - only name recognition. His face and name appeared so much on TV and in print, and the contrast was very sharp compared to Clinton's coverage. It was free advertising.
And whether they agreed with what he was saying or not, simply seeing his face and hearing his voice every single night caused people to become familiar with him.
The policy ceased to matter. The words ceased to matter.
All that mattered was getting face time.
There's a reason movie actors include "close up face shots" in their contracts.
And Trump played his part beautifully. The media understood this, too, but they were stuck. If they didn't report on him, people would change the channel because it wasn't as entertaining/inflammatory. If they did they were giving him free advertising.
Dave
Staff member
So Mr. Garrison from South Park?
Apparently West Virginians didn't know calling a black woman an ape might be seen as racist!
Oh cmon, Romney got taken down by the 47% comment. Trump ran as a strong-man and flip flopped enough to convince some people that doubted him that he's not going to be as bad as his bluster.
And what i was saying is that the news didn't do what they should have to make people take what Trump said seriously, so they felt fine with voting 3rd party because they disliked Hillary. It likely also didn't help that everyone was convinced she'd win, so a protest vote felt safe.
Oh cmon, Romney got taken down by the 47% comment. Trump ran as a strong-man and flip flopped enough to convince some people that doubted him that he's not going to be as bad as his bluster.
And what i was saying is that the news didn't do what they should have to make people take what Trump said seriously, so they felt fine with voting 3rd party because they disliked Hillary. It likely also didn't help that everyone was convinced she'd win, so a protest vote felt safe.
The only chance either of them had was against each other.
GasBandit
Staff member
As many of us all here said for months.
Honestly, I think Hillary would have done much better had she turned down Obama's request to become Secretary of State during his first term. All of the Republicans ammunition that they used was from that time period, like Benghazi, the e-mails, etc. She might have had more of a chance had she come in a little more fresh, but that baggage of her SoS term made too many Democrats apathetic to her presidential bid. Bernie didn't help matters either, and I am pretty sure he is kicking himself for unintentionally helping cause the "Never Hillary" movement among many Democrats. As much as he wanted to become president, I think the last thing on his mind was helping bring about a Trump win.
As much as he was screwed over by the DNC, he still didn't want Trump to win. It's why he still kept endorsing Hillary even after it came out that the DNC was trying to downplay him.
GasBandit
Staff member
He never stood a chance because:
1) The D primary uses superdelegates (716 DNC members, Democrat senators/representatives, Governors, and "distinguished party leaders") whose votes are each basically are worth thousands of the votes of the unwashed democrat primary voters. This system was adopted explicitly to disenfranchise the rank and file in favor of the party elites.
2) There were numerous reports of voting irregularities in the Dem primary polling locations. A Stanford study showed that states with a "paper trail" had the two candidates neck and neck where those without seemed to favor Clinton much more heavily. There were reports (and videos) of polling places going to lengths to block Bernie voters as well.
3) Leaked e-mails showed the DNC, supposed to be neutral, was actually heavily and stridently taking active steps to back Clinton over Sanders. The malfeasance became so blatant and unforgivable that DNC head Debbie Wasserman-Schultz had to step down in disgrace... and was immediately hired by the Clinton campaign on the same day.
We've discussed point #2 - it's not a Stanford study, it's a study done by two grad students, one of whom went to Stanford; the paper they've written hasn't been peer reviewed or verified; the authors acknowledge that some of the numbers they used are incorrect, meaning their entire analysis is useless; the methodology they used relies on information that is poorly suited to detecting fraud in the first place.
http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/
For example, he owes Breitbart heavily. So he appoints Bannon to Chief of Staff. Already people are calling their congressional representatives, professional politicians are publicly stating how unacceptable this is and calling for his removal. So, now, Donald can say, "Well, I have to get rid of you, look at the outcry," and kick Bannon to the curb without having really paid him back.
I just don't think Donald's enough of a Chessmaster for that.
The other possibility is that he's trying to do a bad enough job that the electoral college actually does reject him so he can go home instead of having to do the job.
http://www.snopes.com/stanford-study-proves-election-fraud-through-exit-poll-discrepancies/
The Nation's analysis held that fraud detection exit polling varied significantly from the type of exit polling typically carried out in the United States:
While exit polls are used to detect potential fraud in some countries, ours aren’t designed, and aren’t accurate enough, to accomplish that purpose. [A polling company VP], who has conducted exit polls in fragile democracies like Ukraine and Venezuela, explained that there are three crucial differences between their exit polls and our own. Polls designed to detect fraud rely on interviews with many more people at many more polling places, and they use very short questionnaires, often with just one or two questions, whereas ours usually have twenty or more. Shorter questionnaires lead to higher response rates. Higher response rates paired with larger samples result in much smaller margins of error. They’re far more precise. But it costs a lot more to conduct that kind of survey, and the media companies that sponsor our exit polls are only interested in providing fodder for pundits and TV talking heads. All they want to know is which groups came out to vote and why, so that’s what they pay for.
As well, standard exit polling conducted in the U.S. can be very inaccurate and systematically biased for a number of reasons, including:o Differential nonresponse, in which the supporters of one candidate are likelier to participate than those of another candidate. Exit polls have limited means to correct for nonresponse, since they can weight only by visually identifiable characteristics. Hispanic origin, income and education, for instance, are left out.
o Cluster effects, which happen when the precincts selected aren’t representative of the overall population. This is a very big danger in state exit polls, which include only a small number of precincts. As a result, exit polls have a larger margin of error than an ordinary poll of similar size. These precincts are selected to have the right balance of Democratic and Republican precincts, which isn’t so helpful in a primary.
o Absentee voters aren’t included at all in states where they represent less than 20 percent or so of the vote.
As the New York Times put it, "[N]o one who studies the exit polls believes that they can be used as an indicator of fraud in the way the conspiracy theorists do."[DOUBLEPOST=1479240601,1479240097][/DOUBLEPOST]For a moment, I started thinking about some of the incredibly poor choices Trump is suggesting for various posts, and something occurred to me. Now, I'm giving him way too much credit, but, it seems like appointing these people he owes political favors to, into positions they are unqualified for, to create public outcty, is a way for him to wash his hands of them.o Cluster effects, which happen when the precincts selected aren’t representative of the overall population. This is a very big danger in state exit polls, which include only a small number of precincts. As a result, exit polls have a larger margin of error than an ordinary poll of similar size. These precincts are selected to have the right balance of Democratic and Republican precincts, which isn’t so helpful in a primary.
o Absentee voters aren’t included at all in states where they represent less than 20 percent or so of the vote.
For example, he owes Breitbart heavily. So he appoints Bannon to Chief of Staff. Already people are calling their congressional representatives, professional politicians are publicly stating how unacceptable this is and calling for his removal. So, now, Donald can say, "Well, I have to get rid of you, look at the outcry," and kick Bannon to the curb without having really paid him back.
I just don't think Donald's enough of a Chessmaster for that.
The other possibility is that he's trying to do a bad enough job that the electoral college actually does reject him so he can go home instead of having to do the job.
It's amazing just how little the people around Trump knew. As if none of them prepared for him to win.
Well he might not be one overall, but from what i heard not paying his debts is something he's really good at.
She had the majority without super delegates. The e-mails show that the DNC wished Sanders would just drop it AFTER it was clear he could not get majority (without using previously mentioned super delegates.). Which yes, obviously they would prefer that. 2 is just speculations.
Necronic
Staff member
I have to be honest the whole "what if it was Bernie" game is so silly to me. If it had been Bernie there would have been some other pile of horsehit peddled by Breitbart and co straight into the yawning mouths of the same imbeciles that elected trump, and they would have gobbled it up and asked for more just like they did with Hillary.
When there are no standards for accuracy or facts then anyone can be made into a demon.
When there are no standards for accuracy or facts then anyone can be made into a demon.
He is a socialist and he's Jewish. I'm pretty sure those two things would have been enough. The stigma around those 2 characteristics would have been too much for most of the Trump voters, I think. Especially the socialism.
It's not the Trump voters that are the factor here. Trump got fewer votes than Romney. It's the Democratic voters that didn't vote, or voted third party, because Hillary was such an uninspiring candidate.
You're right -- Bernie Sanders did show some vulnerability to smear tactics
.
A disputed photograph of Bernie Sanders at a 1962 sit-in was authenticated by the photographer, who released several additional related images.(Snopes)
Civil Rights Hero John Lewis Slams Bernie Sanders
When a reporter asked Lewis to comment on Sanders' involvement in the movement—Sanders as a college student at the University of Chicago was active in civil rights work—the congressman brusquely interrupted him. "Well, to be very frank, I'm going to cut you off, but I never saw him, I never met him," Lewis said. "I'm a chairman of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee for three years, from 1963 to 1966. I was involved in the sit-ins, the freedom rides, the March on Washington, the march from Selma to Montgomery, and directed their voter education project for six years. But I met Hillary Clinton. I met President Clinton.
The preeminent civil rights hero's pooh-poohing of Sanders came at a press conference where the Congressional Black Caucus PAC announced its endorsement of Hillary Clinton for president.
John Lewis: I did not mean to 'disparage' Bernie Sanders' civil rights activism
On Saturday, he said he had not meant to express doubt “that Senator Sanders participated in the civil rights movement, neither was I attempting to disparage his activism”.
...
Lewis said he “did not say that I met Hillary and Bill Clinton when I was chairman of SNCC in the 1960s”.
Hillary Clinton wins Democratic primary in South Carolina