2016 Presidential Election Thread

[illinilaw08]

You are a smart attorney. Why are you shocked people think things are rigged? Bernie got screwed, so to speak by the DNC. Hillary gets questions fed to her in debates. Think of all the corruption in Illinois politics. Why wouldn't national politics be the same. It's all crooked.

 

1) What do you mean by "rigging"? To me, rigging an election means stealing votes, not counting votes, people fraudulently voting.

 

2) Assuming that definition, there is no evidence that the DNC stole votes, refused to count votes, or had people vote for Clinton repeatedly, who were not eligible to vote, etc. The fact that the DNC preferred Clinton as a candidate is not evidence that anything was "rigged."

 

3) Voter fraud is statistically insignificant. Every study finds that.

 

4) There is evidence that Brazille sent a debate question to the Clinton campaign. That is a bad thing to do! But the question was a question about the lead poisoning in Flint AT A DEBATE IN FLINT! Do you really think Clinton wasn't already prepared for that question? I can say with 100% confidence that sending Clinton that question did not change the debate in the least. Thus, I don't see how that is evidence that the election is rigged.

 

5) Even assuming Illinois politics has plenty of corruption, there is no evidence of "rigged" elections. The closest thing that exists in politics today as to "rigging" elections is gerrymandering Congressional Districts. And in recent years, that has occurred with much greater frequency in Republican controlled state legislatures.

 

Simply put, I am shocked that people think the election is "rigged" because there is no evidence to actually support that. It is fear mongering at its worst, and it is just not based in reality.

[Brian]

Simply put, I am shocked that people think the election is "rigged" because there is no evidence to actually support that. It is fear mongering at its worst, and it is just not based in reality.

 

The candidate putting out the claims doesn't care about your evidence!!!

[CanOfCorn]

Yep. Rigged.

[lostfan]

The thing about Brazile "sending Clinton debate questions" (let's assume it wasn't one question, that was extremely obvious to guess for even the most passive observer) is that a debate isn't like a standardized test. It's not like you can see the question, then go look up the answer and go into the test with the answer written down. It's a debate. You have to talk about it for 2 whole ass minutes and then respond to your opponent doing the same thing.

[NorthSideSox72]

The thing about Brazile "sending Clinton debate questions" (let's assume it wasn't one question, that was extremely obvious to guess for even the most passive observer) is that a debate isn't like a standardized test. It's not like you can see the question, then go look up the answer and go into the test with the answer written down. It's a debate. You have to talk about it for 2 whole ass minutes and then respond to your opponent doing the same thing.

Also, their debate prep doesn't focus on questions so much as topics. If the question somehow centers around, say, Syria, they have a set of talking points they will address, and then the more ad-libbed part is just adjusting it a bit to the nature of the question around it. So in the end, getting the exact wording of a question isn't a big help.

 

Unless you are a person who simply refuses to do real debate prep at all, I guess. Which is frightening.

 

[Soxbadger]

Also, their debate prep doesn't focus on questions so much as topics. If the question somehow centers around, say, Syria, they have a set of talking points they will address, and then the more ad-libbed part is just adjusting it a bit to the nature of the question around it. So in the end, getting the exact wording of a question isn't a big help.

 

Unless you are a person who simply refuses to do real debate prep at all, I guess. Which is frightening.

 

Nobody knows more about debate than I do. I know more about the tax code than anyone. I know more about ISIS than anyone. I know more about making money than anyone.

 

The sad part is, I have a really strange feeling Trump is going to win. And when he does all of those who didnt vote or voted for him will share in the blame of what happens.

Edited November 3, 2016 by Soxbadger

[Kyyle23]

Nobody knows more about debate than I do. I know more about the tax code than anyone. I know more about ISIS than anyone. I know more about making money than anyone.

 

The sad part is, I have a really strange feeling Trump is going to win. And when he does all of those who didnt vote or voted for him will share in the blame of what happens.

 

I'm getting that same strange bad feeling

[StrangeSox]

Eh, early voting numbers are looking very solid for Clinton in more than enough states for a strong 270+ EV firewall.

[caulfield12]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/clintons-primeti...-090002058.html

 

Clintons prime time soap opera reaching its finale?

[Balta1701]

Eh, early voting numbers are looking very solid for Clinton in more than enough states for a strong 270+ EV firewall.

Scary NH poll today because NH is part of that "firewall" and that poll had "endoftheworld" ahead.

[StrangeSox]

Most of the polls this week have been fairly low quality, but NH is definitely not a must win for Clinton. There's a reason all of the aggregators except nate silver have the odds very strongly in her favor.

[StrangeSox]

I wouldn't this year. His model is over reactive to everything and seems designed to swing hard to relatively minor inputs and has tons of uncertainty baked in. Plus some of the poll adjustments they're doing don't seem to make any sense. Right now it's really just him hedging ridiculously because he screwed up so bad on the primaries.

 

538's model correlates everything too much. For example, if a new poll of Oklahoma came out tomorrow and Trump gained a couple of points there, nates model would drop Clinton's odds overall even though there's already a 0% chance she wins that state. But a movement for Trump in one poll nudges everything slightly in his favor. It allows for his model to pick up small shifts in a short period, but it also means it's very sensitive to every tiny little input.

Edited November 4, 2016 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

There's a chance we don't know who controls the Senate until January.

 

https://t.co/qBquzX0mex

[CanOfCorn]

There's a chance we don't know who controls the Senate until January.

 

https://t.co/qBquzX0mex

 

 

Can someone explain this to me?

 

In Arizona, incumbent Republican Sen. John McCain leads Democratic challenger Ann Kirkpatrick by 16 points among likely voters, 55 percent to 39 percent.

 

And in Georgia, incumbent Republican Sen. Johnny Isakson is ahead of Democratic challenger Jim Barksdale by 11 points among likely voters, 48 percent to 37 percent, with Libertarian Allen Buckley getting 7 percent.

 

Yet, in this reliable Republican state, they are voting for a man that is running on a platform of being "an outsider," of being "not from Washington," of being not a Bush or a Clinton. So, how can voters in these states vote for "not another Clinton," yet, keep incumbents that have served since 1983 and 1999 respectively and expect change?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Hate Congress, love your own Congressman/Senator. The problem is the other guy.

[Jerksticks]

Can someone explain this to me?

 

 

 

Yet, in this reliable Republican state, they are voting for a man that is running on a platform of being "an outsider," of being "not from Washington," of being not a Bush or a Clinton. So, how can voters in these states vote for "not another Clinton," yet, keep incumbents that have served since 1983 and 1999 respectively and expect change?

 

 

Well I think most Americans (even center lefts to medium lefts) probably realize a conservative SCOTUS is safer for the people. That's why Trump will probably win. But I think to your point, in case of a Hillary victory, most people probably want a republican congress to slow any Hillary/Bernie ideas down. For example, those crazies want complete govrnmt control of healthcare. Scary scary scary to those who fight for their dollars. I think you'll see that reflected in the final voting.

[CanOfCorn]

Well I think most Americans (even center lefts to medium lefts) probably realize a conservative SCOTUS is safer for the people. That's why Trump will probably win. But I think to your point, in case of a Hillary victory, most people probably want a republican congress to slow any Hillary/Bernie ideas down. For example, those crazies want complete govrnmt control of healthcare. Scary scary scary to those who fight for their dollars. I think you'll see that reflected in the final voting.

 

I couldn't disagree more. But that's ok.

[RockRaines]

I couldn't disagree more. But that's ok.

With literally every single point

[CrimsonWeltall]

Well I think most Americans (even center lefts to medium lefts) probably realize a conservative SCOTUS is safer for the people.

 

Are you talking about 2nd Amendment issues only? Because a more conservative SCOTUS sounds terrible for women, gay people, 1A supporters, and 4A supporters.

[StrangeSox]

Michael McDonald

‏@ElectProject

Florida #earlyvote update 11/4 (reg Reps lead Dems by 1,833 votes out of 5,267,750 votes cast, or +.03%)

 

Michael McDonald ‏@ElectProject 42m42 minutes ago

In 2012, FL Dems were +2.7 points or 76,873 votes over Reps at this same point in time, now Reps +0.03% or 1,833 votes

 

Michael McDonald ‏@ElectProject 40m40 minutes ago

What makes 2012 FL comparison difficult is change in law that has increased early voting, up 2.4 Million votes at same time in 2012 (+81.8%)

 

Michael McDonald ‏@ElectProject 39m39 minutes ago

FL turnout is not going to be up 2.4 Million votes over 2012, so some Election Day voters (where Reps win in past) converted to early

 

Michael McDonald ‏@ElectProject 30m30 minutes ago

On top of this, we have wildcard of increase of FL unaffiliated voters voting early, up +651,463 votes over 2012 or 214.4% (not a typo!)

 

IIRC a lot of this new UA vote is Latino.

[StrangeSox]

and from Nevada

 

Jon Ralston @RalstonReports

State of play in NV:

Dems build Clark firewall to 61K.

Trump path very narrow here. Needs HUGE Tuesday GOP turnout. http://www.ktnv.com/news/ralston/the-nevad...rly-voting-blog

 

That much of a lead in Clark going into Tuesday should make for a fairly comfortable win in Nevada. Obama had a similar margin and won that state by several points in 2012.

[StrangeSox]

What the early voting in several key swing states seems to be indicating so far is that, unless these early voters are nearly 100% cannibalized from election day voters, we're going to actually see fairly decent turnout rates overall this year. A far cry from the record-low participation Clinton-Bush race many of us might have assumed two years ago.

[NorthSideSox72]

Well I think most Americans (even center lefts to medium lefts) probably realize a conservative SCOTUS is safer for the people. That's why Trump will probably win. But I think to your point, in case of a Hillary victory, most people probably want a republican congress to slow any Hillary/Bernie ideas down. For example, those crazies want complete govrnmt control of healthcare. Scary scary scary to those who fight for their dollars. I think you'll see that reflected in the final voting.

This is a staggering post. Not because of policy views, but because you seem to think that people left of center prefer right-of-center representation in SCOTUS? That makes zero sense, and would make zero sense the other way around as well.

 

[Balta1701]

https://twitter.com/mmflint/status/794411799579922432

 

So....this could be something?

He's trying to allege coordination between the FBI and the Trump campaign, that 91u1iani had advance notice that the FBI was going to intervene in the race.

[StrangeSox]

Honestly, that seems a bit far-fetched to me. More likely, and based on multiple reports from multiple sources, there's a bit of a war going on between FBI NY office, FBI DC office and the DOJ with the FBI NY office having at least a few hardcore anti-Clinton types. These guys are far enough in the tank that they wanted to launch full-scale investigations of the Clinton Foundation based on that "Clinton Cash" book, which the higher ups in the FBI and DOJ laughed off. So the story allegedly goes that these FBI NY guys are the ones who came across the Huma emails on her husband's laptop as part of a separate investigation. They were almost definitely going to leak this stuff, and maybe that's Mayor 9/11's source, so Comey tries to get out ahead of it with his crappy letter.