US Presidential Race 2016

[The Bishop]

Yeah mboy, but there is a slight difference perhaps between stating the election *will* be rigged before it happens and highlighting possible irregularities afterwards?

(not that I expect this to have any more actual consequence than most people on here)

[Deleted]

Nov 27, 2016 11:53:13 GMT jamie said:

Nov 27, 2016 11:27:28 GMT mondialito said:

I am torn on Gillibrand. On paper, she seems capable of beating Trump or Pence, but then so did Hillary Clinton. She hasn't been in federal politics nearly as long as Clinton and would be nowhere near as complacent as Clinton was in the general election.

However, the fact the linked story refers to Gillibrand possibly tapping up the same donors that make up the Clintons' contact book do show why she may yet be a flawed candidate. She can flip flop on issues (pro-gun when representing a rural hunting district in the House, less so when in the Senate) and may come across as yet another elitist telling people what they think they want to hear.

I think we need to see what the Democrats do over the next four years. If they rebuild from the ground up, then those concerns need not be the millstone around her neck the way Clinton's problems were, if not, it will look like a top-down operation which people will reject.

I think Gillibrand is the sort of safe choice many Democrats will want, especially if the alternative candidate is a Democrat version of the Tea Party in 3 years time. As mentioned before, I think she would be a much better candidate electorally than Hillary. Up until 2015 Hillary was viewed as a good candidate, it's only really the emergence and daily coverage of supposed scandals which caused her to drop in support. As long as Gillibrand doesn't have any skeletons in the closet, she would do fine. Agreed she is a flip-flopper, but her relatively short and low key legislative career may help her, as opposed to Clinton's high profile policy changes eg; Iraq War. 

Clinton proved in the 2008 primary that she wasn't a good candidate. She was never a good campaigner and this was well known even before 2008. 

[Deleted]

Nov 27, 2016 11:53:13 GMT jamie said:

Nov 27, 2016 11:27:28 GMT mondialito said:

I am torn on Gillibrand. On paper, she seems capable of beating Trump or Pence, but then so did Hillary Clinton. She hasn't been in federal politics nearly as long as Clinton and would be nowhere near as complacent as Clinton was in the general election.

However, the fact the linked story refers to Gillibrand possibly tapping up the same donors that make up the Clintons' contact book do show why she may yet be a flawed candidate. She can flip flop on issues (pro-gun when representing a rural hunting district in the House, less so when in the Senate) and may come across as yet another elitist telling people what they think they want to hear.

I think we need to see what the Democrats do over the next four years. If they rebuild from the ground up, then those concerns need not be the millstone around her neck the way Clinton's problems were, if not, it will look like a top-down operation which people will reject.

I think Gillibrand is the sort of safe choice many Democrats will want, especially if the alternative candidate is a Democrat version of the Tea Party in 3 years time. As mentioned before, I think she would be a much better candidate electorally than Hillary. Up until 2015 Hillary was viewed as a good candidate, it's only really the emergence and daily coverage of supposed scandals which caused her to drop in support. As long as Gillibrand doesn't have any skeletons in the closet, she would do fine. Agreed she is a flip-flopper, but her relatively short and low key legislative career may help her, as opposed to Clinton's high profile policy changes eg; Iraq War.

There is a big difference between the Tea Party and the Sanders' movement. The latter has a fairly clear ideology and well defined policy goals, whereas the Tea Party was essentially a roar of anger whose members had incoherent and contradictory goals. Many of the elderly whites backing the Tea Party were fx. deeply dependent on Medicare and Social Security ("Keep your government hands off my Medicare").

[slicesofjim]

Nov 27, 2016 10:38:50 GMT jamie said:

Nov 27, 2016 0:30:02 GMT slicesofjim said:

If the Democrats pick her for 2020, either Trump will be a two term president or Pence will secure his first full term. It will show that they've learned nothing. A politician that sways with the breeze, and associates herself with very disreputable movements on university campuses.

I disagree. She would be facing a Republican incumbent who has been elected on a platform which he either can't possibly deliver or won't deliver because it's so awful. Many of the Trump voters this year will want 'change' and in a few years time Trump will be the establishment to them. Gillibrand is basically Clinton without the personification of being an insider and all the baggage she accrued over the years. Even as a Clinton supporter I can recognise that her baggage relating to her emails, Benghazi etc, were probably her downfall this election and she would have won easily if none of them had occurred (Clinton was quite popular until early 2015, then collapsed for the following 6 months). You will have to elaborate on the last point, I've read she opposes sexual assault on campuses but can't see anything where she supporting anything 'disreputable'. 

She's in favour of casting aside due process and the presumption of innocence where there are accusations made of sexual assault in campuses.

[The Bishop]

Nov 27, 2016 12:11:05 GMT @pjones said:

Well there were people who thought she was a good candidate at that point

Neither RA or DB (who he quoted) claimed in that exchange that she was a "good" candidate - they simply cited polling at the time.

[jamie]

Nov 27, 2016 12:09:23 GMT @odo said:

Nov 27, 2016 11:53:13 GMT jamie said:

I think Gillibrand is the sort of safe choice many Democrats will want, especially if the alternative candidate is a Democrat version of the Tea Party in 3 years time. As mentioned before, I think she would be a much better candidate electorally than Hillary. Up until 2015 Hillary was viewed as a good candidate, it's only really the emergence and daily coverage of supposed scandals which caused her to drop in support. As long as Gillibrand doesn't have any skeletons in the closet, she would do fine. Agreed she is a flip-flopper, but her relatively short and low key legislative career may help her, as opposed to Clinton's high profile policy changes eg; Iraq War.

There is a big difference between the Tea Party and the Sanders' movement. The latter has a fairly clear ideology and well defined policy goals, whereas the Tea Party was essentially a roar of anger whose members had incoherent and contradictory goals. Many of the elderly whites backing the Tea Party were fx. deeply dependent on Medicare and Social Security ("Keep your government hands off my Medicare").

While he had his problems, Sanders himself was a good candidate for the left. He was focuses on the issues as you said and stayed on message with a populist economic platform. However, many of those backing him are not so marketable and have more in common with the stereotypical 'liberal' and 'hard-left' than the Democrats. It very much depends on who emerges as their candidate and whether the more centrist members of the party can nominate an inspiring candidate. 

[jamie]

Nov 27, 2016 12:16:44 GMT slicesofjim said:

Nov 27, 2016 10:38:50 GMT jamie said:

I disagree. She would be facing a Republican incumbent who has been elected on a platform which he either can't possibly deliver or won't deliver because it's so awful. Many of the Trump voters this year will want 'change' and in a few years time Trump will be the establishment to them. Gillibrand is basically Clinton without the personification of being an insider and all the baggage she accrued over the years. Even as a Clinton supporter I can recognise that her baggage relating to her emails, Benghazi etc, were probably her downfall this election and she would have won easily if none of them had occurred (Clinton was quite popular until early 2015, then collapsed for the following 6 months). You will have to elaborate on the last point, I've read she opposes sexual assault on campuses but can't see anything where she supporting anything 'disreputable'. 

She's in favour of casting aside due process and the presumption of innocence where there are accusations made of sexual assault in campuses.

Can you link to an explanation of that? The closest I could find to that was requiring the publishing of statistics relating to the verdicts on sexual assault cases which in my view would incentivise campuses to help prosecute more cases (because having many accusations but few prosecutions would look bad) which may lead to too little presumption of innocence. I also found many conservative websites but no reputable sources. 

[slicesofjim]

Nov 27, 2016 12:57:19 GMT jamie said:

Nov 27, 2016 12:16:44 GMT slicesofjim said:

She's in favour of casting aside due process and the presumption of innocence where there are accusations made of sexual assault in campuses.

Can you link to an explanation of that? The closest I could find to that was requiring the publishing of statistics relating to the verdicts on sexual assault cases which in my view would incentivise campuses to help prosecute more cases (because having many accusations but few prosecutions would look bad) which may lead to too little presumption of innocence. I also found many conservative websites but no reputable sources. 

She invited Emma Sulkowicz to the State of the Union address. She had made a complaint of sexual assault against another student, which was not upheld by the University, nor did it lead to criminal charges. Sulkowicz then performed protests on campus carrying around a mattress, which was somehow considered art. Gillibrand labelled her a victim, and therefore the man she had accused - and who had not been proved guilty - guilty. I think this is unacceptable and dangerous, and is not the sort of thing people supposedly on the left should associate themselves with.

[jamie]

Nov 27, 2016 13:08:52 GMT slicesofjim said:

Nov 27, 2016 12:57:19 GMT jamie said:

Can you link to an explanation of that? The closest I could find to that was requiring the publishing of statistics relating to the verdicts on sexual assault cases which in my view would incentivise campuses to help prosecute more cases (because having many accusations but few prosecutions would look bad) which may lead to too little presumption of innocence. I also found many conservative websites but no reputable sources. 

She invited Emma Sulkowicz to the State of the Union address. She had made a complaint of sexual assault against another student, which was not upheld by the University, nor did it lead to criminal charges. Sulkowicz then performed protests on campus carrying around a mattress, which was somehow considered art. Gillibrand labelled her a victim, and therefore the man she had accused - and who had not been proved guilty - guilty. I think this is unacceptable and dangerous, and is not the sort of thing people supposedly on the left should associate themselves with.

In that case, agreed that is stupid and a bad move on her part. I think the Democrats need to stay away from this sort of politics more broadly on identity, 'student' politics etc. 

[Richard Allen]

Nov 27, 2016 13:52:33 GMT @boogieeck said:

The more I look at this I think that Pence played a blinder. I seem to recall Kasich claiming he had been offered the slot on the ticket.

Kasich claimed that Trump offered him the VP position and told him that he would have almost total control over domestic and foreign policy.

[Deleted]

So Trump himself is on record saying that the election was rigged (even though he won it). If that isn't a cause for investigation and recounts, I don't know what is?

[finsobruce]

Nov 27, 2016 21:14:26 GMT @odo said:

He's - he's not disputing the vote is he? Has Jill Stein hijacked his Twitter feed?

[jamie]

Is there actually any proof that illegal immigrants vote or are people claiming this just stupid/making it up?

[mondialito]

Nov 27, 2016 21:40:34 GMT jamie said:

Is there actually any proof that illegal immigrants vote or are people claiming this just stupid/making it up?

Black and Hispanic people vote, close enough.

[mboy]

Yeh, it's a hilariously dickish intervention from Trump that harms his own argument (again).

[thirdchill]

[Sharon]

Nov 28, 2016 0:53:55 GMT thirdchill said:

Daft woman (being very polite here!)

[Deleted]

Nov 28, 2016 0:53:55 GMT thirdchill said:

Wrong thread (no relevance to the election), and it has already been posted in the Castro thread. 

[thirdchill]

Nov 28, 2016 1:04:51 GMT Sharon said:

Nov 28, 2016 0:53:55 GMT thirdchill said:

Daft woman (being very polite here!)

The irony of complaining about US Electoral integrity when praising fulsomely a dictator who never held elections and crushed any opposition.......oh well.

[mboy]

Nov 28, 2016 1:06:42 GMT @odo said:

Nov 28, 2016 0:53:55 GMT thirdchill said:

Wrong thread (no relevance to the election), and it has already been posted in the Castro thread. 

Its relevance to the election is that is shows what an utter pratt she is, and she deserved h her derisory vote.