Jump to content
Sturgeon's House

2016 Presidential Election Thread Archive


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Jeb Bush  

So DNC, sure was a good idea to back Clinton over Sanders, eh? Clinton is just so much more electable.

[get prepped for some ramblings]    I get more depressed than scared.    Her voting record as a senator isn't good at all(in my opinion) with votes for the Iraq War(and not apologizing for it till

I might wake up to watch (starts 4 AM Romanian timezone) but I hugely dislike both candidates. In fact, I don't see looking around a potential statesman / stateswoman that I like in entire Western world. I kind of sympathized a bit Trudeau but he's too leftist for my taste. I rate myself as a conservative liberal and constantly voted this way since I obtained the right to vote with a small hiatus in 2000 when it was between an ex-Commie and a nationalist-Stalinist despicable candidate.

 

Anyway, I use to follow US elections with moderate interest but obviously I am not aware of the intricacies and stratagems so here's one question, how much the other candidates matter? I mean, Green party, Libertarian party etc. Are they likely to be able to tip the balance to one side or another?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The US electoral college system makes things wonky as the Libertarian party could tip states to either Clinton or Trump depending on the state. Greens are pretty inconsequential, but democrats might berate them to such a degree that they'll won't get 75% of the current Green vote which usually happens and could lose a state, but I doubt that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I might wake up to watch (starts 4 AM Romanian timezone) but I hugely dislike both candidates. In fact, I don't see looking around a potential statesman / stateswoman that I like in entire Western world. I kind of sympathized a bit Trudeau but he's too leftist for my taste. I rate myself as a conservative liberal and constantly voted this way since I obtained the right to vote with a small hiatus in 2000 when it was between an ex-Commie and a nationalist-Stalinist despicable candidate.

 

Anyway, I use to follow US elections with moderate interest but obviously I am not aware of the intricacies and stratagems so here's one question, how much the other candidates matter? I mean, Green party, Libertarian party etc. Are they likely to be able to tip the balance to one side or another?

 

I don't think you'll find much disagreement about disliking both major candidates here.

 

I am shying away from making profound predictions about this election, because as I understand it the polling data are much less certain than is normal for this stage of the election.  However, I don't think the small parties will matter much.  My understanding is that they look like they're going to make a bigger difference from polls a few months before the election, but that during the actual election their impact is much smaller.

 

The Democrats rant and rave about how the Green Party lost them Florida in 2000, but my understanding is that's just party mythology and demonstrably untrue.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you'll find much disagreement about disliking both major candidates here.

 

I am shying away from making profound predictions about this election, because as I understand it the polling data are much less certain than is normal for this stage of the election.  However, I don't think the small parties will matter much.  My understanding is that they look like they're going to make a bigger difference from polls a few months before the election, but that during the actual election their impact is much smaller.

 

The Democrats rant and rave about how the Green Party lost them Florida in 2000, but my understanding is that's just party mythology and demonstrably untrue.

Pretty much, IIRC three times as many Florida Democrats voted for Bush as voted for Nader.
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Anyway, I use to follow US elections with moderate interest but obviously I am not aware of the intricacies and stratagems so here's one question, how much the other candidates matter? I mean, Green party, Libertarian party etc. Are they likely to be able to tip the balance to one side or another?

 

How much do they matter?

 

 

Not much.

 

Look at the body language of the female reporter on the bench interviewing Johnson.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The debate could be terrifying. It's a shame a candidate like Trump can survive this process and still be a challenger. He may even spend the evening not answering the questions, making shit up (even be downright lying ) and it seems he'd stil be a factor or he may even gain support. 

 

The US Presidential debate isn't really about reasoning, or logically convincing the audience that this candidate or that candidate understands things better or is more qualified, or anything that makes much sense like that.  It is a theatrical event.  Historically, candidates who seem more charismatic and benevolent have done better.  The canonical example is the Nixon v. Kennedy debate.  Everyone who has looked into their biographies objectively knows that Nixon was smarter than Kennedy, surrounded himself with smarter people still, and was a far better statesman.  Kennedy nearly started WWIII (some have tried to pass off the Cuban Missile Crisis as expert brinksmanship.  Horseshit; it was pure luck), Nixon achieved reprochement with China.  But Kennedy was handsome, knew how to perform on camera, and seemed to glow with optimism and candor.  Nixon seemed sinister, old and inarticulate.

 

I fully expect Trump to steamroll Clinton in this event.  The news has typically portrayed Trump as an impulsive bully who says whatever nonsense springs to mind, and there is an element of truth to this; Trump is much less filtered than a typical candidate.  A typical candidate would sooner plunge a dagger into their own intestines than say anything remotely controversial, and Trump clearly actively courts controversy.  But what they're forgetting is that Trump has spent the last fifteen years or so in entertainment.  The random, insane nonsense he spouts on Twitter?  I'm pretty sure he can turn his filter right back on.  If what Trump needs to do is pretend to act the way people expect a president to act, then he absolutely can convey gravitas and the appearance of leadership.  This isn't a thesis defense where people will be critically dissecting what the candidates' opinions and stances on matters, it's more like an acting competition.  Trump has far more experience as an actor.  Trump has far more range.

 

In his book, Trump portrays himself as an expert deal-maker with a keen sense for what makes a good business deal.  On his reality TV show, Trump portrayed himself as a tough-to-please executive who would only tolerate flawless performance.  During his brief stint in professional wrestling, Trump portrayed himself as a lovable, slightly bumbling billionaire with a strong sense of right and wrong and a knack for showmanship.

 

They're all completely different personalities, and they're all completely fictional.  Sir Ian McKellen explains:

 

 

So tonight we'll get to see Donald Trump using his acting skills to portray President Donald Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Trump made a point about his supposed "support" for Iraq. He was asked about it on a radio show and didn't give much thought to it and why would he as his opinion didn't matter to national discourse. He later became one of the more vocal right wing voices against the war right after it happened in 2004. I don't see why he rambled on about Sean Hannity though or failed to mention that Clinton actually voted for the Iraq War. 

 

At the theatre I went to, I actually witness Clinton supporters for the first time(I didn't see any MAGA hats and didn't hear any cheering for Trump so I assume that Trumpers were a small minority). They cheered for her(even as she proposes expanding the US military influence around the world reinforcing my belief that only libertarians and socialists are the only true part anti-war movement). I was a little jarring. They also cheered for taxing the rich, minimum wage, "trumped-up," debt free college, and some other Clinton one-liners. Millennials suck right?

 

Trumpo seemed off his game and, like the Iraq thing above, could never really finish a thought before spitting out word salad. Trump is like a bacteria though, so I doubt that Clinton will be able to out-perform Trump again, as the Donald will evolve the necessary traits to survive.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the goofiest thing because I remember Trump being anti-Iraq 10 years ago. It's like people have the memory of a goldfish.

Sure there was that one Howard Stern "interview" in 2002. But it's been common knowledge that Trump was anti-Iraq and he was beat up for it in the Bush Administration.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the goofiest thing because I remember Trump being anti-Iraq 10 years ago. It's like people have the memory of a goldfish.

Sure there was that one Howard Stern "interview" in 2002. But it's been common knowledge that Trump was anti-Iraq and he was beat up for it in the Bush Administration.

 

I remember him being anti-Iraq, too, yeah. This election has made very clear that people will remember whatever they want to remember. What actually happened doesn't matter, especially where Clintons are concerned.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The US Presidential debate isn't really about reasoning, or logically convincing the audience that this candidate or that candidate understands things better or is more qualified, or anything that makes much sense like that.  It is a theatrical event.  Historically, candidates who seem more charismatic and benevolent have done better.  The canonical example is the Nixon v. Kennedy debate.  Everyone who has looked into their biographies objectively knows that Nixon was smarter than Kennedy, surrounded himself with smarter people still, and was a far better statesman.  Kennedy nearly started WWIII (some have tried to pass off the Cuban Missile Crisis as expert brinksmanship.  Horseshit; it was pure luck), Nixon achieved reprochement with China.  But Kennedy was handsome, knew how to perform on camera, and seemed to glow with optimism and candor.  Nixon seemed sinister, old and inarticulate.

 

I fully expect Trump to steamroll Clinton in this event.  The news has typically portrayed Trump as an impulsive bully who says whatever nonsense springs to mind, and there is an element of truth to this; Trump is much less filtered than a typical candidate.  A typical candidate would sooner plunge a dagger into their own intestines than say anything remotely controversial, and Trump clearly actively courts controversy.  But what they're forgetting is that Trump has spent the last fifteen years or so in entertainment.  The random, insane nonsense he spouts on Twitter?  I'm pretty sure he can turn his filter right back on.  If what Trump needs to do is pretend to act the way people expect a president to act, then he absolutely can convey gravitas and the appearance of leadership.  This isn't a thesis defense where people will be critically dissecting what the candidates' opinions and stances on matters, it's more like an acting competition.  Trump has far more experience as an actor.  Trump has far more range.

 

In his book, Trump portrays himself as an expert deal-maker with a keen sense for what makes a good business deal.  On his reality TV show, Trump portrayed himself as a tough-to-please executive who would only tolerate flawless performance.  During his brief stint in professional wrestling, Trump portrayed himself as a lovable, slightly bumbling billionaire with a strong sense of right and wrong and a knack for showmanship.

 

 

Yes, I am well aware is more of a show than a debate, however one can expect that some sort of debate should take place regarding the job description and some direction of government, at least. That is a good example with Kennedy vs Nixon (and reminds me to watch All The Way). 

 

Now I watched partly that TV show with Trump some years ago, being an executive, my gf from back than like it, never understood why and since than I am convinced Trump is a weak leader. I am not impressed by his deal maker reputation, he's uni dimensional and lacks perspective. Being a leader means much more than be a good deal maker.

 

Besides, when you make deals you have to have a partner willing to have an agreement which is not happening often in politics. Thing that comes first to my mind about this debate is that it was one person who showed dignity, calmness, sensibility and leadership while there was another who acted like a toddler who wants cookies and is a compulsive liar. The set back for Clinton is that with Trump you sense genuinely who he is ( a mediocre individual to put it in a diplomatic manner) while she might be perceived as not trustworthy enough but hey, she's a politician, this is no news. But what I think sums up all the ups and downs of each candidate is thinking who you'd want to be near those nukes' buttons and I know I don't want Trump. 

 

LE: 

 
Several times both candidates just summed up what good policy is but not what is good about their policy. This latter is where Clinton could have crushed Trump. His point about getting back money from abroad should be followed by a plan on how to do that. Clinton and Trump couldn't possibly score voters on the birthers issue. And Hillary was lucky to not be questioned more on Libya and has even lost some points when Iran was the topic.
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...